Jump to content

User talk:Wifione/Archive 2011 (February)

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

Karate

[edit]

May I ask why you protected this article? I'd just blocked two editors, as I noted at RfPP, in order to avoid doing exactly that.HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ. Just to get your attention :) My inadvertent mistake. Do please unprotect the page. Or just message me if you wish me to do so. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As always, sincerely :) Take care and see you around. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was my fault :( . I accidentally deleted HJ Mitchell's comment in an edit conflict. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Grim. It's nothing :) Take care. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silly edit war anyway. Why would you revert 5 times over about 4 words? Saying that, I once blocked someone for edit warring over a comma! Talk about WP:LAME! HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts? 03:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I have been involved in as lame edit wars as you describe; lol. But it's all the experience of editing I guess... Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination

[edit]

Hi, I had a question about the AfD you recently closed. I understand that in the end there was no consensus, but most of the arguments to keep the page seemed to center on the notion that it could be improved and built upon to move it out of an essay or original research state. I certainly plan to give ample time for editors to improve the page, and indeed I've already attempted to set that in motion on it's talk page, but I was wondering what an acceptable amount of time would be to wait before, should the article not be improved, renominating it. Thanks so much for your time!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. Yaskar, a reasonable time before renomination could be perhaps a minimum of three-four months upwards. But even if the article isn't improved in the meanwhile, there's a good chance that you would come up against keep votes during your subsequent nomination, similar to those that were witnessed in the current AfD. Feel free to write back for any further assistance. Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks so much for your answer. However, I'm still somewhat curious about the process. Many (possibly even a majority, although that doesn't really matter here) of the editors found the article to be entirely unencyclopedic, far too much of an essay or original research to be included. The main defense of the article (although correct me if I'm wrong) seemed to be that it would be improved to the point where it was acceptable. Even if these objections are never addressed, as long as at least a few editors object to deletion, the article will have to remain? So far I seem to have been the only one to make major clean up edits, and even these were just removing some of the mish-mash of possible ambiguous meanings. Thanks again.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any administrator, while closing an AfD, would consider the strength of the argument rather than the number of arguments for or against deleting a particular article. I have deleted articles that had (I think) more than 15 keep !votes and less than (I'm not sure, but most probably) 5 delete !votes simply because of the fact that the strength of the delete !voters was much stronger than that of the keep !voters. However, when the strength of arguments of both keep and delete !voters are equally logical and valid, then it's necessary to take a numerical count of the number of !voters. And in this case, that has been the case. In case we had only a few keep !voters and many delete !voters in this AfD, I would have deleted the article. How much is manyand how many are a few is subjective and depends on the closing administrators call. But in general, if such a number is around the 50% mark with a + or - 10% window, in general, such AfDs will be closed as No consensus. Therefore, the next time you nominate the article, keep this in mind. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marojejy blocked account

[edit]

Hi, I created a new account, no problem, I understand the reason even if I was quite surprised at the first time. My question is : what about the pictures I uploaded as 'Marojejy', is there a way to shift it to the new account ? I'm quite worrying about. Thanks ! -- Zoolwise (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zoolwise. There is a simple way. Once you log into your account using your old Marojejy username, you can go to a page Wikipedia has called CHU to request a name change for your previous account Marojejy. You can request that Marojejy be changed to any new username that is available and that does not go against our username policy. Once the renaming is done, the images that you uploaded under your user account Marojejy can be transferred to the new user name. The moment you file a request for a username change at CHU, the bureaucrats who handle that desk would assist you considerably -- but you will have to use your Marojejy username to log onto Wikipedia rather than your Zoolwise username before you file a username change request at CHU. If you're ok with it, please reply with a yes and I'll unblock Marojejy temporarily for you to file a username change request. The other option of course is to be relaxed about the pictures you uploaded and get on with editing under your Zoolwise account itself. I'll wait for your response. Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for explaination. So If you could unblock temporarily my account during the day - 4th of February so I can ask CHU to change name Marojejy for Zoolwise. Sounds great ! -- Zoolwise (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you would not be able to change Marojejy to Zoolwise, as you've already created Zoolwise. You can only ask for those names that have not been created (and in some cases, have been created but have not been used for a considerable time). Please again read our username policy before requesting for a new username at the CHU. Irrespective, I'm unblocking Marojejy for a few days till your request comes through. Try not to make edits from your Zoolwise account from this moment onwards. I'll be blocking your Zoolwise account now, as I've allowed you access through the Marojejy account. Also, just for information, kindly do read up on the topics related to Sockpuppets. It'll help you understand why you should, in general, not maintain more than one account on Wikipedia. Write back for any assistance. Thanks. Wifione .......Leave a message 05:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. So, it's a little bit confusing for me. But no worry. So can we delete the Zoolwise's account ? And now, I just have to use my former account 'Marojejy'. I hope it's really no more a problem. I understood everything so I'm no more upset !

Thank you for taking time to explain and fix. -- Zoolwise (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help during the recent edit war at the karate article

[edit]

It had been a while since I have seen so hot a war<g>. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dos Caras, Jr.

[edit]

Thank you for replying my request of Dos Caras, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at RFPP, but shouldn't be "move=sysop"? Tbhotch* ۩۞ 23:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive

[edit]

Does anyone pay attention to what User:Bulldog123 does to articles on an ongoing daily basis. I am sure no one wants to as they will be hounded without end. Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm creation of alternate account for automated edits

[edit]

Confirm creation of alternate account for automated edits.Wificlassone (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfPP protection templates

[edit]

Hey there! Just in case you didn't know (as per this edit), you can use{{rfpp|ap|<admin name>}} to get the template to include the protecting admin's name. Sadly it doesn't do the duration (though that's probably achievable but I'm not a template person!) which is why maybe you used the one you did. Anyway, thought I'd mention it! GedUK  08:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

[edit]

As far as I know, admins can just approve their own alt accounts. I've done it before and no one has ever said anything.--Chaser (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I didn't know that actually. I was thinking it might be good form to line up requests for one's own alternate account. I should have done what you mention I guess, now that Stwalkerster has kindly refused to grant me the account creator right :) Thanks for the message Chaser. I think you do a great job approving editors at AwB. Take care. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This came up for me some time back with Nyttend backup — I wanted IP block exemption and wasn't sure that I was allowed to give it to myself, but I received the same answers as you got. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was quite in the dark about the modalities of granting oneself the rights for the alternate account. I always assumed that the administrative conflict of interest guidelines would come in context here as one perhaps shouldn't be grating oneself a right, even if one had the power to do so. But then, if the community's prevalent practice is to allow admins to grant their alternate accounts whatever rights they wish, I think I'm alright with that too. Thanks for dropping in and leaving the note. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback rights

[edit]

Thanks a bunch, an I plan on using Igloo :). Cheers mate Bped1985 (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Enjoy the experience. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

Reviewing

[edit]

Hi, Wifione! You've just declined my application for reviewers’ flag, assuming that that I'm not aware with what is understood under WP:pending changes and what are the modalities of the right of the Reviewer. Let me draw your attention to the fact, that the WP:pending changes page is linked to the page named 'Patrolling' in ru-wiki. Given the interwikies are OK, I would insist that I do have the reviewers' flag there for several months, and that have already set several hundreds of reviewers' marks in the articles there none of which have been rolled back. If necessary, I may also provide you a separate link to the month statistics of my relevant activities there as a reviewer. Thank you, Cherurbino 13:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much again. Let me repeat from the application pagethat “your strict, rigorous approach to carrying out your administrative functions inspires me as an example to follow”. However I do not rule out that you may find too cumbersome for yourself “…my expectations to rely upon your advices and experience in future”. So if you once find me a kind of an old bore (happily not in this exact sence) please redirect my“methodological questions” to the proper experienced admin.

My ultimate goal in en-wiki is to obtain a certain cross-wiki meta experience. Well, my first pending revision changesrewiew is like this, however I shall not hurry with another review marks until you read this post.

It's a good idea to limit a field of my reviewer's activities at a first step. I see that a list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is too short (≈5–10 articles) unlike ru-wiki where no time limit for pending is set.

Cherurbino (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Timneu22

[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Timneu22 has been moved to a new page, apparently it should not have been on the user's talk page, and the comments you made there removed to the talk page of the RFC. Please add any comments you with to make in appropriate form atWikipedia:Requests for comment/Timneu22. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

[edit]

Hi Wifione. How are you ? It's been a long time.

I need your help regarding this BLP issue about Kaveh Farrokh. I just want to follow the rules of wikipedia. I am looking for the right thing. Thanking you in anticipation. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 05:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi In fact. Open an RfC on this issue. You'll reach the same conclusion that you want. It's better to do it through an RfC rather than through a revert war. If the revert war continues, I or any other administrator would protect the article from any moves till the time an RfC takes place. Consensus which is 2 years can be questioned very easily; especially when the so called consensus hasn't even been displayed on the talk page. So an RfC is the best method. I will not comment on the discussion page of the BLP Noticeboard as I'm watching the article in case there's a revert war. Thanks and drop back for anything. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The fact is that the article shouldn't have been redirected . Because there was an AFD and the result wasNo consensus. In this case, the article should have been kept per: WP:AFD. Plus there was not an agreement in the article's talk page about redirecting the article. Therefore redirecting it 2 years ago unilaterally has been a mistake. Don't you think so ?*** in fact *** ( contact ) 05:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But that's why I'm advising you to open an RfC. Editors, in general, see sense. And your sense makes sense out here. Just use that in the RfC without losing patience (which I see happening with you on the BLP Noticeboard) :) Just relax and keep trying. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you don't, the other group of editors would, in case you revert and get your page back in place. That's not the way discussions work. An RfC is an elongated but longstanding method to obtain consensus once you've seen that there's opposition to the redirect being reverted. You could mention all these points in the RfC, thus strengthening your case. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking your idea as an admin about facts and rules in wikipedia. ***in fact *** ( contact ) 06:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rfc! Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why some editors say that he is not notable. Please check these1,2 and3. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 08:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on your talk page. Remember to not get too serious about this all. Take care. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCC

[edit]

Hi Wifione. Let's be careful about mentioning possible outcomes, because there's always a chance he might he might do it! ;) Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created by Israeli Wiki-Propagandists

[edit]

I saw your note on the Talk Page for the Behrouz Javid-Tehrani article. This is part of a much broader problem that has infected Wikipedia. This phony article is part of a long series of articles being created/tainted by Israeli Wiki-Propagandists who are being trained to flood Wikipedia with anti-Iran propaganda in order to carry out another War Agenda. This situation is out of control as there are Wikipedia Admins now involved in this propaganda who are locking user accounts of anyone and everyone that questions the so called "facts" being presented in these propaganda articles. Immediate action is needed as this situation has already spiraled out of control by the sheer number of propaganda vandalism being carried out by these people.

This user is teamed with "AFriedman" whom among others in this gang (including another Israeli propagandist named "Alefbe") has numerous sockpuppets. USER: Cordelia Vorkosigan appears to be a cover ACCOUNT for USER: CordeliaNaismith. Any pro-Israeli propaganda being spread by this user in Wikipedia should be taken in that context.Cardovus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Template "for the bot" at UAA

[edit]

A minor point to be sure, but the bot only removes reports on users that have been blocked. The remainder of reports are handled by actual users, either moved to the holding pen or removed after the reply has gone stale. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Beeblebrox. You won't believe this, but I had no idea about this. Thanks so much. Right after your message, I read up HBC AIV helperbot's code for all jobs from check_user to add_job to remove_name and obviously, you are more or less perfectly right. One could therefore queue a remove_name job to run for the remainder of reports too I guess. But I'll set that up some day later. Thanks again. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that we don't want the bot to make the decision which reports get removed and which go to holding.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True; we could allow the UAA editors to flag UAA reports with markers that could be used by the bot to recognize where to send the report to. But I agree with you, the decision can't be made purely by the bot. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a while there we had some unofficial clerks that were dong a decent job of handling it. The actual competent ones all seem to have moved on.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Due to more pressing editing concerns hopefully. I've been following the discussions there and the movements of clerks too. Guess for now, we'll manage on our own. Wifione ....... Leave a message 20:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh

[edit]

I am now laughing rather than smiling. I have found something amazing regarding Kaveh Farrokh, and added it to the Rfc. There used to be a deal between the 2 parties in Nov. 2008. ( Which is not logically correct based on all the facts and rules of the wikipedia.) I am really shocked. I think it really needs certain attention by admins. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a ...*** in fact *** ( contact ) 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending article merge

[edit]

Hi, Wifione! In the process of browsing through articles to be wiki-linked to my new article, I came across this one: Great Russian language. Although I provided it with necessary web links, I think that the proposal to merge it with an „opus magnum” :) named "Russian language" is quite reasonable. However I did not find there any link to the common discussion of AfM. The discussion on the topic talk pageceased >2 years ago. What are the common procedures for this case in en-wiki? Thanks, Cherurbino (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is original research

[edit]

Hi, Wifione!

By asking this question I venture to be declared an enemy of my own people, however "Plato is my friend, but truth is more"…

Look at these three lists:

  1. List of Russian people
  2. List of Russian linguists and philologists
  3. List of Russian scientists

First of all, #1 seems to be mirrored in ##2–3 (al least, Vladimir Dahl exists in all of them).

Second, I do not see any non-POV criteria in the preambula of these articles. Hence, the principle upon which these lists were built seems to be an original research.

You see, Russia is too big, and its history is too long — so far I may immediately (in reasonable time, I mean) point out dozens of persons claiming they are "unfairly excluded from the lists". Although, the upper bound of this scope is limited with the total count of articles dedicated to Russians, I fear it shall be too much for one article.

Also, I do not see any technical necessity for keeping this kind of lists. If anybody needs to have an exhaustive list of all Russians (Chinese, Japanese, Americans etc.) before his eyes — then, Wikipedia has such smart tool, as a "Category" tag. Click on[[Category:Russian people]] — and you get all Russians "in one bottle". Hence at least the «List of Russian people» may deserve AfD.

All abovesaid is nothing more that my own POV. I do not intend to make any "revolutions" in the friendly environment of en-wiki. However I shall appreciate if you enlighten me upon the specific of content policy of en-wiki in this context. Thanks, Cherurbino (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Methodology is more than doubtful, because, for example, Eduard Shevardnadze is not "Russian" in any way! He may be listed among Soviet People, or Georgian People — but not in the List of Russian people! (Unlike him, Stalin may be listed, since he was among the leaders in Russian Federation before the USSR was set in 1922). Cherurbino(talk) 13:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

Nvidia PureVideo

[edit]

You warned me last week because of violating the three-revert rule on Nvidia PureVideo. Unfortunately, the non-constructive edits of anonymous users did not stop, and I really don't know what to do. Could you advise me? Thank you! --Regression Tester (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What you should be doing is leaving a note with your points of view on the IP's talk page every time you revert their change. The problem is, I suspect, the fact that you don't seem to be doing that even now. I've left a note right now on the IP's talk page. From now on, try and engage the IP into discussing changes. The IP just seems a new editor; so handle her/him with kid gloves. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Regression Tester, I've blocked the ip in question for attempting to personally attack you. I'm also semi protecting the article in question for a week. Come back if the issue continues. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 12:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and sorry for not reacting earlier!--Regression Tester (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

[edit]

RfA

[edit]

Hi Wifione. Thanks for your valuable support on my RfA. However, it's early days yet and of course it can still go either way ;)
I have a great respect for your admin work and come across it frequently, so I'm naturally curious why you declined to provide a comment with your oppose of Snottywong's RfA. Note that I am not criticising your choice in !vote in anyway whatsoever - SN's RfA was withdrawn by the candidate, but the consensus that had developed was clear. If you prefer not to air your reason publicly, please feel free to email me. All the information I can get about RfA will help the research I'm doing on RfA as a process, and is treated in absolute confidence. Cheers, Kudpung (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh hi Kudpung :) I generally don't leave rationales in my !votes if my !vote is along with obvious consensus. Sometimes, I even decide not to !vote when I realize that my !vote would be only going along with consensus. In cases where a rationale would influence an RfA hanging in balance to be considered one way or another by a bureaucrat, or in cases where my !vote belongs to the minority (or non-consensus side) I leave a comprehensive rationale. In SnottyWong's case, I did not believe a rationale would have gone to advance any viewpoint of the closing bureaucrat/editor. I hope this answers your query. If it doesn't, do please ask away :) And yes, best wishes for your RfA; I'm sure you're seeing its progress with a balanced perspective. Wifione .......Leave a message 16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. It explains perfectly. I guessed it would be on those lines but I just wanted to be sure. You are probably well aware of the research I do into RfA, whether I pass my own or not - and it's not looking to good at the moment because of one or two comments by sworn enemies, and I've been more or less told that I'm not supposed to defend myself. Not to worry, plenty of our best admins failed first time round :) --Kudpung (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the RfA. You're right. The best editors have had their RfA blown to pieces. Take it as a learning experience. Don't disregard the views provided by the opposing group, even if you consider them sworn enemies. The project has a wonderful method of changing even sworn enemies into supporters. They call it assuming good faith. But it has to work both ways... And I'm sure it will. Best wishes always. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These sworn enemies won't change. But if you're interested, when it's all over I'd like to get your feed back on why RfA candidates are not allowed to defend themselves against bad faith - it might help me to know better how to conduct situations when editors and admins are gaming the system in the future. Kudpung (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Don't let bitterness get the better of you. Take care. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection Aryan Vaid

[edit]

Hi I decided to take it here as I wanted to discuss this off the protection page. First of all, that was the first ever request I have made for page protection and I followed the instructions as best I could. There was nothing to indicate that I should include anything to do with the legal threat, just an explanation of why protection was being asked for. "and a brief reason for your request below your header" I do not think that your comments were particularly in good faith, they are actually a little offensive and admonish me without establishing any wrongdoing.

  • "Now tell me, where in heaven's is the "veiled legal action threat"? Can you show me the exact diff? If there is no diff, then don't make such a claim. And if there is, do kindly show it here."

Perhaps leaving it at "Can you show the diffs for the legal threat (please)" would have been much more desirable, dropping the rest as it really reads like I have done something wrong. If I could not consequently come up with anything then perhaps following up with the rest might have been appropriate. As for the diff it is here [1] and the 3RR is hereIP 3RR Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Chaosdruid. You are actually right with respect to the 'heaven' argument. My apologies for the same. Now to the article.The IP could well be the actor and could well have a very valid point. I should request you to take a re-look at the source from which you've replaced the statement attributed to the actor. It seems utterly unreliable.(In fact, you've actually done a good job in reverting; so striking off my sentence; Wifione ....... Leave a message) Being a BLP, we need reliable sources. And for contentious statements, highly reliable. After posting this message, I'm undertaking an administrative job of cleaning up that BLP. In case you have better reliable sources, kindly only then replace the statements I am going to delete. My apologies again for slighting you. Sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The issues here as I see them are: protecting Vaid from defamation (and so Wiki from poss. action), preventing badly sourced/contentious material, ensuring users that violate policy are informed of how to correctly act, calming warring by neutral intervention, WP:BRD, actions warning users who ignore BRD or continue to insert contentious information, reporting problems, removing 2RR and 3RR posibilities by actions against users edits by noms for blocking/page prot. etc., discussing said actions, conclusions and clean ups.
I would consider our discussion about the comment on the protection page in the last "clean ups" part and not a problem at all, certainly in the "apology accepted and now forgotten" department :¬)
Good luck with the clean up - If it was Vaid I am hoping that he would follow the links I gave and so take more appropriate steps now rather than simply warring.
Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I've cleaned up the article to the least uninvolved extent possible. Will keep a watch on it. Cheers. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should the material on the talk page also be removed pending any further problems? Chaosdruid (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Heisman

[edit]

I read on a website (here: http://cupwire.ca/articles/37979 ) that Wikipedia is suppressing the link for the Mitchell Heisman page. Can you confirm if this is true? If not, can I make a link? DutchPrisoner17 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion on the talk page. My interest is not really in Mitchell Heisman or his note, but rather in the reasons why a page is not up for him. And I see the complexities in this situation -- I don't really disagree with the reasons to delete his page. It does seem to me though that at the very least his case falls into a grey area and maybe it's currently in limbo. That is, he's not famous at all but I do wonder if his writing will eventually get him noticed more widely. Perhaps someone will take his note and edit it into something that somebody might make into a book or series of books. In fact, I wonder if a future decision may hinge then somewhat on whether or not his work gets formally published by a reputable publisher? Would that not then make him and/or at least his work worthy of a Wikipedia page? Like I said, at the very least him or at least his note seems to fall into a grey area.DutchPrisoner17 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Company

[edit]

Hi, a general question :

In case of creating an article for a company, shall I include the word "Company" in the article's topic ? ex. (Is this right ? ) *** in fact *** ( contact )06:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I had already checked the name. The name of that company was used in Wikipedia in a couple of other articles with the word "Company" included.--> 1 and 2 ( before I create the article ). That's why I decided to have it, too. Thanks again for the help. Best wishes, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 10:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at Veriss1's talk page.
Message added 07:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

thanks for the assist :) Veriss (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello

[edit]

hello this is aryan vaid.and i have been repeatedly requesting you guys not to touch my page,but you guys dont seem to listen.well i am left with no choice but to have my attorney take this matter further.unprotect my page,and i am ready to drop it or else,i have no choice.you guys have earlier written a lot of wrong facts about me,and also misquoted me.i have saved copies along with the dates of those pages.unprotect my page,and let me edit it again.or else my atorney needs to handle it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryanvaid (talk •contribs) 13:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wifione/Archive_2011_(February)&oldid=1139342665"