User talk:Wifione/Archive 2014 (Nov-Dec)

BLPCRIME

Doesn't look like you're around much lately, but you might be interested in this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bbb, I guess the discussion is controlled. Thanks for the note. Wifione ^Message 06:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GURJAR

Dear Wifione, hi Lots of writer talking about me and my act. If you will carefully see the whole effort made for Gurjar Article, you will find nothing wrong fro me. I never provided any content without citation and authentic proof. These writer reverting the whole Gurjar content without debate. they have removed the contents and images which was displayed here after long debates among the writers like Chhora, Ashok Harsana, AP Singh and myself. I have provided Gurjar population estimation post independence as published in Reputed largest National English News Paper of India.. 100 years old publication. Same type of information was also taken on [Jat Peoples] Wikipedia from same news paper. If this is appropriate information there then why not on Gurjar. Secondly Sardar Patel & Samrat Mihir Bhoja were famous Gurjar Icons and their images be displayed on Gurjar wikipedia. Why these writer not debate before to revert. It seems that they do always right by reverting whole contents and images, but if i do undid in good faith it is wrong. This is my request you to look into the matter and solve the issue honestly. Till then i have reverted the article in previous version as displayed since long time. regards, Gurjeshwar (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for a week for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, instead of trying to revert war, please use the talk page of the article to gain consensus. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 11:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devyn Rose

Hello - I am writing as I would like to see if I can submit the below for required notability. Devyn Rose is currently on Amazon's Top 10 Best Sellers for her single "Falling 4 U" and #1 Best Seller for Soul and R&B. Here are links for proof:

Song Link: http://www.amazon.com/Falling-4-U/dp/B00HYLLNVS/ref=sr_1_1?s=dmusic&ie=UTF8&qid=1416425946&sr=1-1&keywords=Devyn+Rose

Underneath the song, it will show this information as of 11/19/14:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #8 Paid in Songs (See Top 100 Paid in Songs)

   #1 in MP3 Downloads > Songs > R&B > Soul
   #6 in MP3 Downloads > Songs > Pop

1RR

This seems to imply I've done something wrong - presumably editing the lead section after reverting once before, (2 or 3 days before which even the user filing the complaint admitted wasn't 1RR). It's absolutely true I have no interest in editing Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I wonder though, if, as an administrator, you really think the editors of said article should get away with rejecting well-explained edits by attacking the editor with sarcasm, unfounded allegations of sock-puppetry, and not being a "good editor" - as opposed to rational arguments. One glaring example: "[ISIS] aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control" (4th para of lead section). This is "supported" by an in-line reference; however, the ref says nothing whatsoever about "legislative control" or "most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world". This is purely an invention of this article. The editors clearly believe that "consensus", defended by personal abuse and refusal to discuss, should decide which of various newspaper versions is correct, and state it as fact in the lead, "supported" by a reference that does not support it - even after the mistake is - politely - pointed out to them: [1] - [the bullet-points are my original post, now interspersed with (supposedly) objections]

As I said, I have absolutely no wish to edit the page (apparently I don't fit in their little would-be social club, which is apparently required in order to correct obvious mis-statements of fact). The deliberate falsification of RS in this article is no more my problem than anyone else's. It's permanently linked to from the Main Page, so it is a problem, as I see it, for the integrity of the project - especially when admin actions interfere with removal of false statements (known to be false) in the lead section of one of the most viewed articles. Since no one else is going to fix this or any of the other problems, now that I've given up, I would be interested to know what you think about it. zzz (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS It is quite a concern, or I obviously wouldn't bother you with it, Wifione. zzz (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Signedzzz. This means exactly what it meant as per my statement. You mentioned that you were not going to edit the article. Then in my opinion, there's no immediate urgency to act on someone's report against you. If you hadn't mentioned that statement, I would have analysed the report with more scrutiny. That's about it Signedzzz. If you have an edit warring issue with any editor, file a report at EWN and if I'm around there, I'll take a look at it. My talk page is not the perfect place to ask for reviews of edit wars as the EWN noticeboard has many of my peers manning the board, so I can always ask them for advice; and anyway, when I'm not around, they're the ones closing the reports. Like I said, that's about it. Have a nice day (and write back if I can help you in something else). Wifione ^Message 16:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have thought of that, myself. I will probably leave it. Thanks. zzz (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural issues

That you blocked user:Mohammed al-Bukhari for breach of 3RR is procedurally correct. But this additional reason is not, because the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant require that the user be notified of the sanctions with a link to the sanctions and that the notification has been logged. Basically user:Felino123 should not have gone to the edit-warring notification page with a 1RR violation until after user:Mohammed al-Bukhari had been formally informed of the sanctions and breached those sanctions. I have now formally notified user:Mohammed al-Bukhari of the sanctions, and logged the notification on the sanctions page.

As I see it you have five courses of action open to you.

Change nothing
Revert the edit to the users page that added the additional reason, and leave it as a block in place for a 3RR violation.
Leave the comment on the talk page and add the block to the appropriate section on the sanctions page.
Reduce the block to 24 hours (which seems to be the norm for first blocks for breach of 1RR under the sanctions) -- see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#2014
Unblock and let it be a shot across the bows, as now that the formal warning is in place the user can then be blocked for a week if they repeat the 1RR.

-- PBS (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PBS:, good to see you here. It's the first time we're interacting. Thanks for the above note. Do guide me as I'm confused by what you write. I've not placed any sanctions on the editor. I've blocked him for a week for having broken 1RR after I warned him of 1RR. If you notice my warning on his talk page, not only does the warning talk about 1RR, it also informs the editor about the July 2013 motion and community consensus. As per our General Sanctions guideline for the article, editors who breach 1RR may be blocked even without a warning. I believe I gave him one chance more despite his earlier 1RR violations, which he disregarded. Do tell me if I'm reading this wrong. I would go ahead and log the block in the appropriate page. Thanks again for dropping by. Regards. Wifione ^Message 15:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the sanctions page under Remedies it states (my bold) "The presence of these [talk page] templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." MaB had not been so notified, until I plonked it on MaB's talk page after your block. If you considered your warning as an equivalent, then you should have logged in on the sanctions page as a notification. Hence my suggestion as an option to remove the additional reason for the block. Personally I would not have worded the general sanctions that way (but added some more flexibility for admin warnings). -- PBS (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I repeat @PBS:, I have not placed any sanctions on the editor, so I don't believe there was any need to inform the editor about sanctions. My information to the editor about the sanctions is basically the Page Notice that every editor sees while editing the said article. My block of 1RR does not require any pre-requisite warning to the editor. I quote from the General Sanctions page, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence". Like I said, I'll log the block as you advise, but again, there is no need to advise any editor about the issue of sanctions if the block is on 1RR. Do tell me if I'm reading all of this wrong. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 15:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without warning is not without notification of the sanctions. The 1RR restriction is authorised under the sanctions, without such sanctions there is 3RR and usual edit warring, so blocking under 1RR is done under the auspices of the sanctions. If the block is not a sanction then what is a sanction under these sanctions? -- PBS (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need to get the wording clarified on the general sanctions page. Because if I can interpret the statement "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence" as alluding to a block without notification of the sanction, I suspect there may be some other administrator who might perceive it similarly too. This is irrespective of the fact that I procedurally informed the editor about the existence of sanctions before the block. Let me bounce this off ANI. Thanks for stopping by and providing this clarification. Wifione ^Message 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that AN is the place to take rather than ANI as general sanctions are initiated there. If you do please let me know. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: Done. Best regards. Wifione ^Message 16:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mohammed al-Bukhari reported by User:Felino123

Hi, I know that you will have been pinged with regard to the above case but thought to drop a note here in case another channel of dialogue was helpful. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Greg. I would suggest that Mohammed sit out for a week and come back only when he appreciates the value of following our policies and discussing issues with other editors rather than warring. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: closed as successful

That's fine, but the first line of the page was already "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful " Andrevan@ 21:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh how did i miss that? I see that now Xeno has closed it again. Thanks for the note. Wifione ^Message 09:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Andrevan@ 01:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Thanks for deciding to lock the 2015 F1 season article to admins only... It's been a complete warfare of vandals for the past two months given the news of Vettel going to Ferrari. With McLaren still yet to decide their lineup locking to admins only is a great idea. Just one suggestion though - could you have it locked until the beginning of the season, when all the silly season stories should be wrapped up by then? Thanks for being a great admin for Wikipedia. Cheers, Aerospeed (Talk) 03:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Aerospeed:. I'll keep a watch. If the edit warring continues, I might do what you suggest. Wifione ^Message 09:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plea to allow an article to develop

Hello Wifione, with the 2014 Formula One season having ended just an hour or so ago, the 2015 Formula One season article needs a few updates to reflect the final status of the 2014 season (current champion's name and the like). Would you mind unlocking it so that this work can take place please. Burgring (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Burgring. I can't unlock the page. The process to include uncontroversial edits onto the article are given in the talk page. Please follow the procedure listed there. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 16:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You locked it, why can't you also unlock it? Burgring (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wrong usage of words. I shan't unprotect the page because it's just gone through heavy edit-warring. As I mentioned, in case you wish to make uncontroversial edits, please follow the procedure listed on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 17:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The philosophy of Wikipedia, and part of the enjoyment of contributing to it, is that anyone can edit an article in real-time with instant results. To lock a page because of bad behaviour by a couple of editors goes against that philosophy. I can't be bothered to fill a form in to request that an edit be made to the article, so my edit will not happen now. It is those who misbehave, and especially those who repeatedly misbehave, who should have their enjoyment curtailed, not those who innocently wish to improve the encyclopaedia. Please reconsider your decision. Burgring (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. My apologies for this experience of yours. I'll try and remove the protection if I see talk page discussions going reach a consensus. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your considerate response. Burgring (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for handling the situation with Radiopathy in a timely fashion. Would you be so kind as to delete my userpage so that garbage is removed from the history? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rationalobserver:: Hi there. I don't think you should worry about deleting the pages in the history because of the tag the user added to your page. You've reverted the user's change and in my opinion, that's more than enough. If you think otherwise, do write back and I'll ping some admin who may help you delete the pages as I might not delete them myself. Do write back for any other assistance. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radiopathy's block

Hey. I've extended Radiopathy's block to three months - originally, it was going to be a month for dropping this gem, but I reconsidered after they had the gall to re-instate the attack. If you feel it's too harsh, feel free to reduce as necessary - personally, looking at this editor's block log, I'm surprised they haven't already been indeffed. Best, m.o.p 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Master of Puppets:: Hey m.o.p good to see you here. You should indeff him, in my opinion, unless he recognises his mistake. I had indeffed him. You reduced his block with your action :) Do reconsider. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear! Sorry, I seem to have blocked a few seconds after you did. My apologies. Re-indeffed. m.o.p 18:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Best wishes. Wifione ^Message 18:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. m.o.p 18:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions re Alhanuty and Paolowalter

Hi, Wifione, we were both examining the same report at the same time, but you beat me to it. :-) I endorse sanctioning both editors. The only thing I would have done differently - and it's something you might consider if this happens again - is to topic-ban Paolowalter because blocks don't seem to work. No big deal. He's just lucky that you're faster than I am. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23, whatever you say is perfect always. If you want to extend the block to a topic ban, please do so whenever you want. Else, if you wish me to do it this time itself, I can do the same. Your call. Wifione ^Message 09:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wifione, I prefer to leave it be. I don't like increasing the sanction on a user if nothing new has happened, even if they deserved it in the first instance. I just wanted to bring it to your attention in case there's a next time. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Best always. Wifione ^Message 14:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lukejordan02

Wifione, I'm not trying to pressure you, but I'd just like to know whether you intend to comment on the latest violation by Luke of his editing restrictions. A "no" answer is fine. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment later in the day once I've woken up properly :) Thanks for the note Bbb23, as always. Wifione ^Message 09:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking action, Wifione. I'm glad one of us is decisive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's really unfortunate that it's come to this. I still think Luke has potential and I think he truly can become a "good" editor (if you will) - we just have to work through the hiccups. Hopefully this block is a push in the right direction and does some good. I will certainly be opposed to any appeals he may have (which I think we're all expecting). Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope he learns. Wifione ^Message 05:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

Featured content: Orbital Science: Now you're thinking with explosions

In the media: A Russian alternative Wikipedia; Who's your grandfather?; ArtAndFeminism

Recent research: Gender gap and skills gap; academic citations on the rise; European food cultures

WikiProject report: Back with the military historians

Traffic report: Big in Japan

Admin?

Eh, I've given it some thought, but I don't really think it's something I'd like to do. I can't help but feel that it would take up a lot of my editing time, and I much prefer being a gnome, I think.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, though. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: No issues. If you change your mind, do tell. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 09:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Op-ed: Who edits health-related content on Wikipedia and why?

In the media: Embroidery and cheese

Featured content: ABCD: Any Body Can Dance!

Traffic report: Turkey and a movie

WikiProject report: Today on the island

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you very much for your help with Luke. While things don't seem to have turned out the way that we wanted them to - we've each grown a little closer and will continue to do our best for other editors who we might be able to "save". Dusti ^{Let's talk!} 16:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:) Surely. Appreciated. Thanks Dusti. Good to see you around. Wifione ^Message 16:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada

Hello Wifione,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE coordinator elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors

Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you.

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.
Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of 3RR policy

Hi Wifione, Thank you for your interest. But I am puzzled by your post. If counting the (good faith) origin of the edit warring - in the present case, changing the leadind picture - is not the normal practise, then Bbb23 is wrong and I am right: I did only two "reverts". If the (good faith) origin of the edit warring counts normally as part of the edit warring, then Bbb23 is right and I am wrong: I did three. The only reason why I went on discussing the subject there is because I consider Bbb23's interpretation (the second one) as unfair, in the light of the letter of WP:3RR and considering what happened. Can you please clarify? Best regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alvesgaspar, I think you are getting completely confused. Bbb23 wasn't warning you for contravening 3RR. He was warning you for edit warring. Bbb23 used the 3RR policy page to make you understand what is a revert. But his warning to you was for edit warring, not 3RR. Coming to the definition of an edit warring revert, do realise that there are pages on Wikipedia where editors work collaboratively and revert each other multiple times; and it is all allowed and done in good faith because of the way the respective editors might be collaborating. But the moment an editor reports reverting to the EW noticeboard, then unless your first edit was a pure addition of new material, every edit that you have attempted in continuation, which removes any other editor's material, will qualify as a revert. In other words, your first edit was a revert purely due to two reasons: one, the report reached the noticeboard, and two, you removed some other editor's material and placed your own. Any administrator assuming your first edit is a revert, would be right. If you require any further clarification, do ask. Wifione ^Message 14:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your concern and explanations. Indeed, that was also my interpretation. Anyway maybe the text in 3RR should be adjusted as to reflect what you have just told me about the "first edit" in a reported edit war. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the definition of a revert is already pretty clear on the policy page. You could nevertheless suggest changes on the talk page of the particular policy page. Wifione ^Message 04:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

If you want to nominate me for adminship, as you suggested on my talk page, and you think there's a significant chance it will succeed, you have my permission to do so. Everymorning talk 03:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everymorning, good to hear from you. Do send me an email and we'll take it from there. Best regards. Wifione ^Message 04:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help?

Radiopathy keeps pinging me in comments where he uses the word "cunt", here he used it three times, including: "So, yes, 'cunt' refers to Rationalobserver". I feel like he is doing this to antagonize me, so I asked him to stop, but he reverted me, saying that I wasn't pinged when, clearly I was. Will you please ask him to stop? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalobserver, sure. I'll remove his talk page access till the time his block is there. Wifione ^Message 03:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that he has removed the pings to your name of his own accord. So I shan't be taking any action as of right now. Write to me if he troubles you again in any manner whatsoever: emails, pings, invectives... I'll remove all accesses in an incrementally increasing manner. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 03:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wifione! Rationalobserver (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you asked Radiopathy not to remove this comment of yours until after he is unblocked, but he removed it anyway. I thought you should know. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Op-ed: It's GLAM up North!

In the media: Wikipedia is "a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess"

Traffic report: Dead Black Men and Science Fiction

Featured content: Honour him, love and obey? Good idea with military leaders.

User:Jclemens/Nac Mac Feegle

Can you take a look at this and let me know what else you'd like me to do so you're satisfied both that 1) The AfD concerns have been addressed, and 2) It's sufficiently changed that you do not believe it would be G4 eligible? Obviously, I want both satisfied before it goes back in mainspace. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jclemens, I've left a reply on your talk page. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 10:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2014 Newsletter

Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in November's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 43 people who signed up for this drive, 26 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: The November Drive removed 26 requests from the Requests page and 509 articles from the {{copy edit}} backlog. We copy edited 83 articles tagged in the target months; July, August, and September 2013. Together with tag removals from articles unsuitable for copy editing, we eliminated July 2013 from the backlog and reduced August and September's tags to 61 and 70 respectively. As of 01:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC), the backlog stood at 1,974 articles, dipping below 2,000 for the first time in the Guild's history (see graph at right). Well done everyone!

Blitz: The December Blitz will run from December 14–20 and will focus on articles related to Religion, in recognition of this month's religious holidays in much of the English-speaking world. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. Sign up here!

Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from 1 January to 30 June 2015 is now underway. Candidates can nominate themselves or others from December 01, 00:01 (UTC), until December 15, 23:59. The voting period will run from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. You can read about coordinators' duties here. Please consider getting involved and remember to cast you vote—it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself!

Thank you all once again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve anything without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Wifione. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

-Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring by spshu--message in ANI

Hey, I sent you a response over at ANI. Will you please go respond to it? 75.162.212.197 (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded with suggestions. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New follow-up response there; thanks.

75.162.212.197 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wifione, I've blocked the IP for two weeks for block evasion. See User talk:IDriveAStickShift. This is one devious user. I suspect he's a sock, but I have no idea who the master is. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure man. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 10:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help

I was mentally exhausted from having to deal with the "BeyonderGod" editor again (he has been trolling me elsewhere for 5 months), so thank you very much for putting a stop to this. David A (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I've not put a stop. I've just protected the page till the end of this year. Please do remember to never edit war or cross 3RR. Please use the talk page discussions and stop at 2RR. In case the disruption continues, come back to the edit warring noticeboard. And also use dispute resolution, as I've suggested. Take care. Wifione ^Message 18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting David A.

Insults

David has inappropriately insulted my intelligence and proceeded to troll and not post evidence in a debate about 2 fictional characters if you read the talk page I haven't insult him about anything yet he insults me about my "Bad" grammar/spelling now I would normally insulted back but I wont I feel he is a serious troll and down plays characters like

Beyonder

And places a character with no clear feats or proper background

Kami Tenchi

And keeps believing he is telling facts but they aren't I also believe he is the infamous Antvasima a known fan boy of the series they both act in the same manner. Beyonder (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Beyonder[reply]

I have never trolled anybody. Also, you were the one who was permanently globally blocked by the Wikia administrators for systematic trolling behaviour, including relentlessly harrassing me and others for 5 months, was separately banned on several different wikis before that, and who has uploaded disgusting homophobic slur texts about me on Urban Dictionary and Definithing. You even wrote a guide in how to successfully troll people, and another about victims that you call "butthurt", naming me by handle. I am not blocked on any Wikia community.

I actually wrote a list of Beyondergod's trolling insults towards me back in early to mid-September this year, and there have been 3 more months of regular harrassment from him since then: http://powerlisting.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Antvasima#List_of_BeyonderGod.27s_trolling He knows nearly nothing about the Tenchi Muyo franchise and strictly keeps constantly attacking it day in and day out, month after month, at all the forums that he frequents, as one of different means to emotionally hurt me, since he knows that I love the orginal series. David A (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to provide more elaborate information:

"BeyonderGod"/"HagoromoOtsutsuki"/"OfficialRikudouSennin"/likely other handles, was first banned from several wikis that he has participated on for systematic multi-wiki trolling vandalism, harrassment, and continuously insulting unreasonability.

He was permanently globally blocked by wikia staff for several months of the above across several wikis, as well as plagiarising the original Outskirts Battle Dome wiki name and widespread systematic lying about his ownership across several communities (his wiki was deleted when the real owners complained), long disgusting homophobic slur texts inserted as insults on other people's user pages, singlehandedly edit-warring to extremes with entire wikia communities, and a written guide in how to successfully troll people, and another about the people who get emotionally hurt and/or exhausted from his absolutely relentless neverending trolling, whom he consistently call "butthurt", naming me by name.

In addition, he has already created various power listing wikis, and they continuously kept a very lacklustre quality with lots of apparently deliberate inaccurate information strictly to troll fans of different franchises.

After his global block, he has continued to spam several communities, including ComicVine, Spacebattles, Killermovies, and even Deviantart. Constantly spamming about the Beyonder and systematically slamming other franchises to cause hurt feelings for their fans over a few thousands of separate posts.

List of his trolling and harrassment on the Powerlisting wiki alone, back in mid-September, with lots more to follow in the 3 months since: http://powerlisting.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Antvasima#List_of_BeyonderGod.27s_trolling

He admits to doing lots of trolling vandalism to "get rid of competition": http://factpile.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:BeyonderGod/Admin_ship

His usual trolling homophobic slur insults, and comments about me being a "butthurt" systenatic victim of his trolling (due to my severe obsessive-compulsive disorder, which is e tremely taxing for me in the long run): http://definithing.com/antvasima/ https://imgflip.com/i/dio9g

David A (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is already edit-warring again. As well as removing another user's post. David A (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He also threatens me here David A (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I draw your attention....

To this uncontroversial RFPP request? :) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dusti :) Good to see you around. I've never protected a user page like that. Unless there's an immediate disruption, I don't think there's a need to block the page. I'll put the page on my watch list any way. Do tell me if this works for you. Wifione ^Message 18:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that :) Salvidrim has protected the page now. Wifione ^Message 18:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User: I am the Beyonder!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_am_the_Beyonder!

Yeah I believe this person is one of David A. Aka Antvasima friends here to troll and vandalized my name he edited his profile with a redirect to mines and also tries to edit my post now no one knows of the talk page of beyonder unless someone told.....David A. Is the one who told his friends I was "Harassing him." Can you handle them both??? Beyonder (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

That doesn't even make any sense. Why would a friend of mine accuse me of being a paedophile? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABeyonder&diff=638563713&oldid=638496348 David A (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radiopathy

Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had a period of two years without a block from September 2012 to present. Apparently they are capable of editing without major disruption. I think a one year block might bring home the seriousness of the offense. It is hard for most editors to understand that an indefinite block is not permanent or how they might gain relief from one. In any event ordinary editing for this editor is spoiled for the present, and even after a year, or even a few years, attempts to edit normally may be spoiled; thus any relief of the ban may be futile. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred. Good to see you here. I'm okay with any change you might wish to do with the unblock (even an unblock, if you want to). If there's anything I can assist you with additionally, please do tell. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 10:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee election results

Featured content: Tripping hither, tripping thither, Nobody knows why or whither; We must dance and we must sing, Round about our fairy ring!

In the media: Wikipedia's year in review video; Checking in with Wikipedia's founders

Traffic report: A December Lull

Warning warning

Hi! I strongly disagree with what had happened regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and have posted not that page under the issue regarding B-theory of time Heuh (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry missed replying to this. If you still have some issue pending, feel free to contact me back. Wifione ^Message 14:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent blocks

I have also removed his RfC here, not only because it violated the actual use of RfC(limited to content dispute), but also included the false accusations of harassment and COI.[2] Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheSawTooth had removed my message on his talk.[3] I think that you should also log this block entry on WP:ARBIPA#Log of blocks and bans, user was reminded of these. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OccultZone. Can you please give me the diff where he was notified of the existence of this? Thanks. Wifione ^Message 07:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[4] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aside these, there have been other problems with the editor. The long term edit warring on Electronic Recycling Association, tenditious arguments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Recycling Association. Led one user to file this issue on WP:ANI##TheSawTooth behaviour. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential edit war happening

Hi I haven't a clue how to report this on the edit war page but there's two editors reverting each others revisions over an argument over summary lengths on the Constantine page here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constantine_(TV_series)&action=history it looks like an edit war to me, could you take a look? 86.15.195.205 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've seen the article, but just feel that it's not edit warring but good natured reverting in the process of editing articles. I'm comfortable overlooking the same, unless one of involved editors report it at the edit warring noticeboard. If there's anything else I can help you with, do tell. Wifione ^Message 15:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Wifione. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

-Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors Late December 2014 Newsletter

Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the December Blitz. Of the 14 editors who signed up for the blitz, 11 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

January drive: The January backlog-reduction drive is just around the corner; sign up here!

Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015 is now underway. The voting period runs from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. Please cast your vote—it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself!

Happy holidays from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

From the editor: Looking for new editors-in-chief

In the media: Wales on GamerGate

Featured content: Still quoting Iolanthe, apparently.

WikiProject report: Microsoft does The Signpost

Traffic report: North Korea is not pleased

V.A.S. (Musician)

Hi Wifione, hope all is well with you. I was wondering why the page V.A.S. (Musician) was deleted? Thank you and looking forward to your reply.

Itsmelmel (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)itsmelmel[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V.A.S. (Musician) would throw light on your query. Do write back in case you need any other assistance. Wifione ^Message 15:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wifione and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 04:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that this is happening to you. You're one of the few admins that I know and hold a large amount of respect for. I can only hope that this ends in a manner where you still hold your bits and aren't disheartened to the point of leaving the project. I've added my two cents on the case page - if there's anything you need, do let me know. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 19:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to clear him, if he's innocent as claimed. If not, well, none of us can help other than to say, please don't put us all through a case if the accusations are true. Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dusti. Appreciate your effort at the Case request and the kind words here. Honestly, I appreciate it quite a bit. Wifione ^Message 04:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I think you've summed up your case request very neutrally on the case request page, which is how it should be. I thank you for that. My objective is purely to get cleared of these inane accusations (and personal attacks) rather than to drag the community through a case. I'm of the opinion that this case would see a redux purely because I don't believe that the opposing group would be satisfied with whatever comes through this case and might continue to attack me further on too irrespective of Arbcom's decision. I'm actually expecting that too. Would ping you whenever I need advice on any involved party. Thanks again. Wifione ^Message 04:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration will be unpleasant. Sorry for that. If the accusations are found by the arbitrators to be false, the accusers will be told to stop. If the accusations are true they will fashion a remedy and it will be over. The worst they can do is ban you from editing Wikipedia. They can't prohibit you from eating ice cream or enjoying a sunny day. So don't worry excessively about this. Jehochman ^Talk 05:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too good :):):) You're the best. Wifione ^Message 05:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chawinda

Hello you said you were watching it. Now vand revised again after protection expired [5] he says see talk but talk page is still dispute discussion RFC is still open and he is starting same editwar. He is allowed to revise it each time protection is expired? This is second time on this page on same revision. He did 17 revisions before now 18th. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione: see also User talk:Mr. Stradivarius#Revision after protection expired. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stradivarius. SawTooth, I'll go with Stradivarius' suggestions on his talk page. Write back if you want anything other than what Stradivarius suggests. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 13:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm has resumed BLP violations

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm (aka IP 213.114.147.52), after being automatically unblocked when the block (set by User:Black Kite for BLP violations) expired, has resumed his disruptive editing. In spite of warnings, he is still adding unsourced material to biographies of living people: [6][7][8][9] 87.120.157.168 (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post this to WP:ANI so more eyes can assess the issue? Thanks. 10:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I already posted it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm_has_resumed_BLP_violations; but from my experience ANI reports remain often unresolved. An older report against the same editor was not given any answer: [10]. 95.111.29.74 (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do wait and see the response at ANI. Thanks Wifione ^Message 10:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]