User talk:Wifione/Archive 2009

2009 Archives

Speedy deletion of "Vanisha Mittal"

A page you created, Vanisha Mittal, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hello Wifione, this is how you can fix your signature :

[[User:Wifione|Wireless Fidelity Class One]] ([[User talk:Wifione|talk]])

Add the above code to the signature text box in your preferences and stop the signbot from bothering you repeatedly. --Nvineeth (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nvineeth Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Sprint 8

I have nominated Sprint 8, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sprint 8. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ioeth(talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JKK —Preceding unsigned comment added by78.191.35.235 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

I removed the mirror of the portal from it because that's probably not a good idea; it might confuse some new user. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters• One bat • One hammer)} 03:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPA for IIPM

Who is it that you see as a single purpose account for The Indian Institute of Planning and Management? A quick glance through the history didn't give me anyone obvious; everyone seems to have edited multiple other accounts. I see some likely IP socks of User:Rock5410 (122.173.182.70, 122.163.77.205, 122.161.164.217, 122.163.84.93), plus User:X0X9 who is now blocked. I found my way to this article due to my ongoing attempts to mitigate his disruption. Is that who you're talking about? Because for all his problems, he's not a SPA. Trust me, he has multiple areas he disrupts, even though Indian education is the big area. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I figured it out. He's not a SPA though; you can see my arguments on Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Calling him names isn't productive; you need to figure out a way to get to a consensus that you can both live with.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies... Didn't intend it to sound that way. But agree with you. I'll post a sweet apology for him/her too. CheersWireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, revert, edit war

The recommended cycle for edits is bold, revert, discuss. You were bold and made a bunch of changes. Makranjosh and I reverted some of them. At that point, your correct action would have been to go to the talk page and ask for clarification. Instead of discussing, you chose to edit war, acting like no one else has permission to change your contributions. Your edit warring prevents us from reaching consensus because it short circuits the discussion.

For example, if you had chosen to discuss in good faith rather than edit warring, I would have gladly directed you to the article explaining how much paraphrasing is necessary to avoid plagiarism & copyright violation. It's not my responsibility to make sure you stay on the right side of the law, after all; that's your job. If you're adding so much to the article that you don't have time to paraphrase to the norms here, then you're probably adding too much to the article at once.

At this point, I'm afraid I have to assume that you don't intend to allow us to reach consensus on the article. I fully expect that any work I do on the article will now be reverted because you're going to try to claim ownership. I'd love for you to prove me wrong and self-revert your last set of edits, in which case I'll happily apologize for misjudging you.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WeisheitSuchen. I think we started at the wrong end of the stick both ways. Actually, your continuous accusations of whitewashing, forum shopping, really had put me off for some time. Before replying to your above point, I have three honest suggestions for you, but surely in good faith.

Maybe you belong to a country where people don't use window dressing words while addressing each other. Unfortunately, I do. The problem is, many time, when you write on the discussion board, you come out as being very aggressive. I'd love to engage you in good, constructive discussions. But not, good, constructive, aggressive discussions, because what happens is that the line between aggression and being impolite is forgotten in some of the words you use. Maybe you can be less harsher when you address editors who might be relatively new to the project. Don't mind this suggestion please. And ignore it if you think it makes no sense..... Now going to your point.
I thank you for your link of paraphrasing where I see how sentence copying is allowed, when attributed in quotes (as Wikipedia says that single sentences can be expressed in only so many ways). They write "close paraphrase of a single sentence is not as much of a concern as an entire section or article". I also notice that when attributing to non-free-copyright sources, "If a non-free copyrighted source is being used, it is recommended to use original language and direct quotations, to clearly separate source material from original material". Therefore, I thank you for sending me these links which more or less support what I had been saying in the talk pages.
You say that I'm claiming ownership of the article. Well, the fact is -- and you know that too -- that Wikipedia articles are owned by nobody. And I would not be contributing, creating new articles, and writing to you, if I thought I owned any one of them. When you (or I, or any sane editor) sees a change that is made to an article that is clearly not made with logic or wikipedia rules, you obviously will correct the same. For example, you thought that what I added was wrong, and you immediately started deletingparts of the article. Would you call that edit warring? Perhaps not, as you still aren't following the metaphoric philosophy of thinking from your enemy's shoes. If you had suggested changes to the additions that I had made (considering that you had not worked to add balancing points of view since the past so many days), I would have loved to incorporate them immediately. Sadly, you continued to dispute and unilaterally, without even a proper discussion, deleted paragraphs from the article. Do realise that when you started 'edit-warring' (by the minimal definition you have put across), it's not finally about who started it, but who ended it. And for that, I highly appreciate your continuing discussions in good faith. Although I am clear that the changes you made are not in good faith, and would be considered 'edit warring' under your own definitions (deleting paragraphs without suggesting changes to the editor), I take the cue from you and will put back all the changes you made (more or less) and hope that in the future, we both start suggesting changes to each other before deleting the other person's work unilaterally. Please don't forget, I really appreciate you for the effort in communicating on my talk page.
My last point includes your orientation towards other editor(s) who are playing on the thin line after which they'll be termed vandals. I request you to look at the fact that when a person like Makrand Joshi adds back a line in the introduction (which says that IIPM has been continuously involved in controversies etc etc), I see no comment from you attempting to correct that statement. The line Makrand added was deleted earlier by user Stifle, an OTRS user, because of a specific reason. It's a classic case of an editor putting his own perception, rather than sourced material, up there in the introduction. Did you take an effort to discuss the issue with that editor? He deleted blocks and chunks of information on IMI, AICTE, UGC giving a mystical edit summary ("Too much information"). WeisheitSuchen, be fair and discuss with a balanced inclinaton towards all editors. If you did take up these issues with Makrand, then I'll be more than glad to take back my words in this paragraph. But as of now, I think you are very unfair in your discussions with editors, who're clearly intent on placing material that is unsourced, unreferenced, unvalidated. Hope this makes sense.

Having said that, I have to add that I am putting back your changes (and not Makrand Joshi's) and will wait for your proactive suggestions to putting back those statements with the correct quotations and references. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice that there was some collateral damage when Makrand Joshi overlapped his changes on the page. I'm not quite able to make out exactly what you changed and what he did. However, making the changes according to the edit summaries you provided. If you think I missed out something, please do suggest directly on the article's talk page and I'll change that too. ThanksWireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did your bold edits and I reverted. Because your edits were additions, my reversions were deletions. That wasn't edit warring; that was the bold-revert-discuss cycle which you previously short circuited. If you feel that every single person who reverts one of your edits is aggressively edit warring with you, you are unlikely to be happy at Wikipedia. This is the nature of the game. I'm sorry that I don't take the time to coddle you with soft words of encouragement. I spent over an hour on Sunday morning reviewing your edits, and it seemed like a waste of time when you reverted it all without discussing first, acting like you owned the article and no one else was allowed to edit it. If I have to spend multiple hours reviewing your content, then I don't have time to give you window dressing. Sorry, but that's the nature of Wikipedia. As for Makrandjoshi, if you notice, I did one small edit after he did his stuff. I'm so terribly sorry that I didn't have another two hours to review everything he did. Perhaps you'd like me to quit my job so I can mediate between the two of you? Because that's pretty much what you just asked me to do. Sorry, but I don't have 10-15 hours a week to do this. It's going to take me several weeks to go through everything both of you have done. Once again, if you expect instantaneous responses, you're going to be disappointed. And don't expect me to not call you out when you break laws or Wikipedia guidelines; your desire for "window dressing" doesn't mean I'm not going to call you out when you decide not to play by the rules. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WeisheitSuchen, please don't forget that I appreciate each and every minute that you put in in an effort to improve the Indian Institute of Planing and Management page, as well as other pages (like [1]). I think we're arguing over matters that would lead to a better page. Nice words would always help both of us get along with a good argument. That was the only point. I've made mistakes too. And will make in the future too. Do call out and I'll be pleased to improve. CheersWireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

I hope this is clear, as arethese edits. If you are suggesting someone is a sockpuppet or guessing at people's motivations, same warning to you but I don't see that. --Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general point. I haven't looked through your edits, but I just wanted to make sure it's clear the same thing applies to everybody (some people don't get that). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A block would be punishment, which is against policy. -- Ricky81682(talk) 11:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Various metohods depending on what exactly you want.Rich Farmbrough, 05:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed deletion of International Shows

The article International Shows has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary article on a concept too broad to be encyclopedic: shows or broadcasts of any sort that cross national boundaries. Apparently a vehicle for external links.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop theProposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. TheSpeedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andArticles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC) helpme[reply]

Damn. Knew it. Hi Glenfarclas, thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I accept the proposed deletion tag :) I knew I'd done a completely horrible job. Should have been better. I actually saw a lot many pages internally linking to international shows. So thought why not :) Now I know why not :) I do believe it should be a category than maybe a wikipedia article.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 16:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for reference[2][3]

Signpost

See at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe.

Hope this helps. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Discover the diamond in you

A tag has been placed on Discover the diamond in you, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well asWikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see theArticle Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contactone of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of International Shows

Hey, no worries Wifione. It looks like most of the pages that link to International Shows call it a music label, so I don't blame you for thinking there ought to be an article of some sort under the title, just not this article. You might consider putting a {{db-author}} tag on it. Thanks for your awesome degree of honesty! --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Indian Institute of Port Management

A tag has been placed on Indian Institute of Port Management requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Pleasesee the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contactone of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article page for clarifications on why your tag for speedy deletion was removed by another editor.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Don't Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch

I have nominated Don't Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Shirik (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Count your chickens before they hatch

I have nominated Count your chickens before they hatch, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count your chickens before they hatch. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Shirik (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For both the above articles, I've left comments on the deletion noticeboard. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comments. Your input is definitely valuable. We can continue the discussion there; thanks for letting me know.--Shirik (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of International Institute of Psychosomatic Medicine

The article International Institute of Psychosomatic Medicine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication third-party coverage for this group. Current sources do not establish notability, as they are either self-published or trivial mentions (e.g., on list of "affiliates" of a group that anyone can affiliate with by paying a fee).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop theProposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. TheSpeedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andArticles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed the proposed deletion tag. I did some google search and realised that there's some government references that can be spruced up. Guess what. I did that, and lost my one hour's work in an IP connection. Give me till tomorrow and I'll try and put some more links for notability. Check the page out whenever you can after that. If you still think it doesn't meet notability, do go ahead and put up a proposed deletion tag. Or tell me and I'll put the db-author tag. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll keep an eye out for your additions, or when you're done feel free to leave me a note on my talk page.--RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. Haven't yet been able to work up to doing it. Will do so tomorrow I guess. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 20:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, any update on when you might be able to add those references? It's not a huge rush, but I wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten. --RL0919 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry RL, will do that soon. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Delivery (2000 film

Thank you for adding Special Delivery (2000 film) to the Special Delivery disambiguation page! Shadzane(talk) 01:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full ·Single-page · Unsubscribe ·EdwardsBot (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page TOC

<div style="height: {{{h|{{{height|400px}}}}}}; width: {{{w|{{{width|220px}}}}}}; overflow:auto; margin-bottom: 0.5em; float: {{{a|{{{alignment|right}}}}}}; margin-right: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em 1.0em 0.8em 0; background-color: transparent;">__TOC__</div>

There you go :) --Versa geek 17:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin policy suggestion

An interesting question! Is your suggestion about a current policy, or a proposed new policy? In either case, could you let me know the area of the policy - this will help me know in which direction to point you! Please answer here, as this page is on my watchlist, and I prefer to keep conversations together. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to introduce discussions on a proposed new (I guess) policy.

The proposal: Admins who have undertaken admin procedures on wikipedia article pages should not be allowed to edit on the same pages for a pre-defined period (say 3 months). Corollary - Admins who contribute as editors on certain articles should not be allowed to use their admin powers on that article for a pre-defined period.
Why: Reason 1 - Admins who might have, for example, locked a page for some time or warned an editor about an impending block (due to the editor's tendentious editing) have a possibility of becoming 'attached' with the article; in other words, taking ownership of the article, leading to possible 'conflicts of interest'...
Why: Reason 2 - Other editors, after seeing an admins administrative action on some particular user, and noting that the admin is continuing editing on the page, might not be 'bold' in their editing actions and might accept changes without much discussion.
Why: Reason 3 - An administrator who might be editing as a normal editor on an article might steamroll other editors into accepting his changes without even in reality taking any administrative action as other editors would know that there is no policy that stops him from taking administrative action on the same page.
The benefits - Editors get more empowered about their 'rights' (ha ha). Editors argue competitively with administrators who're editing on a particular page without worrying about his/her pulling off an admin hook. Administrators feel less worried about getting caught in a misjudgement of action as any time they might wish to, say, block a disruptive user, they can easily write into the blacklist and get help from some other admin who - being a third party - would be a better judge of the situation.
The drawbacks - (a) Admins might stop editing on pages that they might have touched earlier; and that can take the sheen off the tempo. (b) The proposal has too many 'mights' and there really 'might' be no conflict of interest (c) It'll give disruptive editors/vandals much more leeway.

That was what I wished to propose steve :-) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 22:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be pertinent to know that in 2007, a similar proposal failed to get consensus. I am not able to find the diff of that right now. But would tell you the moment I do. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting proposal! I'd like to think that a responsible admin who was regularly editing a page (as opposed to anti-vandalism work) would not use their admin tools "in their favour" - and that they would instead report any problems through normal channels (such as RFPP) and let another admin handle it. Obviously, if it was an "emergency" (such as a high level of vandalism in a short time frame), then they might need to temporarily protect a page.

However, you weren't after a discussion on this page between the two of us, so...

It's not one of the Perennial proposals (and I couldn't actually find it looking through the various archives - if you can find it, it'd be interesting to read that previous discussion!). As this is the case, you need to take this to the Village pump policy discussion, where existing and proposed policies and guidelines are discussed. I've put it on my watchlist, so if you do post it there, I'll see it.

If there's anything else I can help you with, please feel free to contact me again. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, if you want to leave a talkback that will take the reader straight to the relevant section (for example, in this caseAdmin policy suggestion), the syntax is {{talkback|<your user name>|<section name>|ts=~~~~~}}. The ts= bit adds the current date/time (5 ~s). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve for the code. I've included it on my talk page for future use. Also, I found the link about failed proposals and found this one to be of particular interest - Wikipedia:Admin neutrality. I'll put a new modified proposal on the links you've provided and will post you a message just to keep you informed. Thanks again ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒_―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it worked! With regard to your proposal, may I suggest that when you word it, you make it clear that it is about content dispute: if an admin has taken any of the actions to prevent a case of pure, undisputed, vandalism on the page, they should be able to continue editing on the page. For example, if a group of vandals keep inserting "He was gay, and had sex with my dad" on an article on which the admin has been working, and the admin protects the page and blocks the editors, then the admin should be able to continue working on the article. Anyway, I look forward to reading your proposal when you have done it! --PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sikkim manipal university directorate of distance education page

The university is a very reputed university and the information is collated from the university website. The trademarks adn the registration of the logo can be checked on the university website. It has more than 3 lac students.

There is no source which authenticates the information about the universities. The courses are offered under distance education and there are no external agencies which monitor/rate the institutions. The affiliations can be checked on the DEC website at www.dec.ac.in

Please write to me at sailesh2225@gmail.com for any other query. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 122.167.79.151 (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but your article needs to adhere to all the guidelines on Wikipedia to be a notable entry. You would need to leave your comments on the deletion discussions. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European television channels

I noticed that you tagged articles about some European television channels as spam, while they seemed fairly neutral to me. Please take a look at articles on some United States channels to get a better idea of what is appropriate in such an article: WABC-TVor Disney Channel, for example. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eastmain, if you believe the tags are wrongly put, kindly remove the tags and give your reasons thereon. I believed that as there were no or very few external references given - despite many months of the article existing - there seemed to be an orientation towards advertising. However, please do feel free to remove the tags and give your reasons in case you so wish. Thanks▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cite template in IIPM

Just wanted to tell you that its not advisable to remove citation template [4]. We must take care not to introduce link rot. Cheers, --TheMandarin (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Will put it back. Actually the last time I tried to change the link, it ended up in a cite error. So went back to the one I was comfortable with. But will change it in a moment. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you put the link back. Thanks for putting it back. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pls use citation templates : To enable citation templates, goto Special:Preferences → Gadgets → enablerefToolbar. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Election report: ArbCom election result announced

News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full ·Single-page · Unsubscribe ·EdwardsBot (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of ( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on ( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians. I do not think that ( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot-RKCians fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because If the college is notable enough for an articel here (and it curently has one) a list of alumni is not spam. This article might not be a good idea, and might be deleted or merged on an AfD, but it isn't a speedy deleteion candidate. I request that you consider not re-tagging ( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) 20:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly alright. Thanks for the message. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Weihwa Chinese School

Hello Wifione, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Weihwa Chinese School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not unambiguous adverising, contains no spammy bits at all. You may wish to review theCriteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. So Why 21:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'll nominate if for AfD if it's alright. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: National english school

Hello Wifione. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of National english school, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. The leftorium 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Preetha

Hello Wifione. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Preetha, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. The leftorium 22:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Devgan

Hello Wifione. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Devgan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. The leftorium 22:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theleftorium, I wanted to inform you that the article Devgan was deleted despite you removing the tag. You may wish to request undeletion of the page. I'll be nominating the other pages from which you removed the tag (except Preetha) for AfD. Hope that's alright with you. In case you have issues with my raising an AfD, kindly leave a reply here. Thanks for your reply.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wifione. :) No, I don't have any problem with that. I just contested the speedy deletion of these pages simply because they didn't meet the G11 criterion. Regards, The leftorium 10:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source for The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Not all reliable sources have to be newsmagazines and I believe the author ("...she has written countless articles about MBA for business magazines, daily newspapers and professional periodicals, including Capital, Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, Die Welt, DMEuro, Financial Times Deutschland, Handelsblatt, Junge Karriere, Markt und Mittelstand, spiegel online, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Welt am Sonntag, Wirtschaftswoche, Wirtschaft & Weiterbildung, and DIE ZEIT, in Austria Die Presse and Der Standard, in Switzerland in Cash and NZZ am Sonntag.") can be considered a reliable source. If you wish to discuss further, seeWikipedia:RSN#The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

civility

I don't think that giving someone an informal warning rather than going directly to "higher authorities" or templating a regular is uncivil, but if you feel you have a legitimate case I'd be quite interested to see what they say about it at the Wikiquette board. Let me try to restate my point about RSN though. If you want to take this to RSN, I will approach that conversation in good faith and will abide by whatever consensus is reached there. Will you do the same, or will you go there with the intention to appeal if the discussion doesn't go your way? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you put it that way. I was referring to you repeatedly telling me to stop forum shopping. The term 'forum shopping' is uncivil. However, never mind. Let's get on with our discussions. Thanks for the message though ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣}15:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping is the name of the specific behavior, as it is known in Wikipedia. How is referring to a behavioral guideline uncivil? If I called you stupid, that would clearly be uncivil (and untrue--I often disagree with you, but I don't think you're stupid). If you really think that referring to a specific behavioral guideline is uncivil, by all means take me to the Wikiquette board. I'm confident about what others would say about it, so I don't mind you getting an outside opinion.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full ·Single-page · Unsubscribe ·EdwardsBot (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI Noticeboard Request for you

I have raised a COI noticehere. Please respond to it. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied there. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣}11:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gender

Not that it particularly matters, but I'm actually a woman. Die Weisheit, wisdom, is a feminine noun in German (as in many other languages. But I don't have an especially feminine user name and don't generally advertise that, so I expect people will often assume I'm a man. I tend to do the same with other editors--I know I've assumed you're male. I thought I'd let you know which pronoun to use so you don't have to wonder though. :) WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oh I am sorry. I didn't mean to sound affronting when I addressed you as a man. But it's sweet of you to leave this note. Thanks :) Will keep this in mind. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣}16:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not insulted at all. I don't expect people to know unless I tell them. You can't read my mind, after all, and it wouldn't be very fair of me to get mad at you for failing to be telepathic! WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

):) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full ·Single-page · Unsubscribe ·EdwardsBot (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of The Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising controversy

I have nominated The Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising controversy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising controversy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated some redirects at AfD.

You nominated some redirects at AfD. AfD is the wrong place to discuss redirects. The correct place is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion – Eastmain (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oh. Thanks. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

From the editor: Call for writers

2009 in review: 2009 in Review

Books: New Book namespace created

News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full ·Single-page · Unsubscribe ·EdwardsBot (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]