User talk:Wifione/Archive 2010 (Jan Feb)

Signpost

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

Signpost

See at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe. Hope this helps. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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 :) --Versageek 17:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Incidently, if you want to leave a talkback that will take the reader straight to the relevant section (for example, in this case Admin 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)

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)

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^*see next comment 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)

^*I have just re-read the above, and realised that I said "protects the page" when I should have said "semi-protects the page". Most vandalism is done by IPs, who wouldn't be able to edit a semi-protected page, whereas any autoconfirmed registered account can edit it. If the page was fully protected, the blocking admin wouldn't edit it themselves. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting an account on the ACC account creation interface

I've requested an account on the ACC account creation interface. If possible, kindly approve. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. Unfortunately I was unable to process your request. The ACC tool is a powerful program, and at the present time your account is either too new for us to determine whether you would know how to properly use the tool or that you have not attained the necessary level of trust to be granted access. Please don't take this personally and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Prodego ^talk 02:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Not an issue at all. If possible, do kindly tell me how much time later should I apply. Had wanted to contribute to help the project in processing prospective user requests. However, I have no issues in waiting. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Hindi to Punjabi Machine Translation System

Hello Wifione. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hindi to Punjabi Machine Translation System, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This pair of languages isn't included in Comparison of machine translation applications; will recommend merger. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're perfectly correct. Thanks for the message ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Darbari family

Looked at via WP:COIN: I don't think it's actually a hoax, but it is very characteristic of the rather aggrandizing pseudohistories that you see for various castes and families, more to be viewed as "founding myths" than history. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Gordon. Sure, let me look through it. Thanks again. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 21:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's spare ourselves an edit war, shall we?

Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa has been moved, moved back, moved back again... it's all rather un-Wiki-like and I don't like doing it. But just to drop by and leave a more personal note than what it's getting to here: the growing consensus is that using "Murder of..." is not POV in most cases and is acceptable per what I wrote on the talk page I linked to and FormerIP's support. Feel free to disagree and state your rationale, but another page move would be inappropriate until the consensus changes. Thanks!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mbinebri, don't worry about any edit war. Being bold is the first step to finding out who'll be interested in recommending what could be consensus. In particular, I think your pov of the murder being the only notability issue could make sense. And there's no particular reason I should be against that point of view as long as you provide references. I appreciate your note here. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 20:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see we could work this out! As for providing references, I believe Zhanzhao has provided quite a few in the section below where we've discussed the page moves.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lucky Everyday

Hello Wifione. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lucky Everyday, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It's perfectly alright. Best ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bapsy Jain

Hi, it looked to me to be an informative article about an author, albeit an article with problems. It did not look to be merely promotional. You can always take it to AfD if you still think the article has no merit. LadyofShalott 18:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no. Didn't want to take it to AfD. Just wanted to know your views on it. Thanks for the reply. Regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. :) LadyofShalott 03:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ekabhishek

Thanks Ekabhishek for your amazing initial work on Central Council of Homoeopathy! ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page ("Hi :)")

As I am not an admin on the ACC tool, I can't even see your request (please note that the admins there are not necessarily the same as admins on the English Wikipedia).

Would I be correct in assuming that you left your request here just a short while before you left your confirmation edit here? If it was at a vastly different time, let me know here.

I can't do anything about it at the moment, but tomorrow evening I will be at home, and able to look into it more - if you get access before then, just let me know here?

With regard to Rollback:

I am not an admin, so can't grant the Rollback right. To ask for the rollback right, you can either ask any admin (but especially those in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests), or at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. There is no fixed criteria, but in general I think most admins would expect to see the following in an editor before they would grant the right:

1. Not a brand new editor! The minimum I've seen is an account that was about a week old, but generally the editor has had an account for at least one month
2. The editor has not been blocked for vandalism within the last 2 months
3. The editor has done anti-vandal edits
4. The editor gives warnings on the talk page of vandals
5. The editor has reported persistent vandals to AIV
6. The editor uses edit summaries regularly

I've not looked at your contributions and history, but you will know if you meet these criteria.

I do not see a request for Rollback from you at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback since 11th October 2009 (I didn't go back any further), and I can't see any obvious messages to admin asking about it. Rollback isn't granted to users without being requested as a rule (admins automatically have it, but everyone else has to specifically request it).

If you have any other questions on these two issues, please feel to ask them here (and if I don't contact you about ACC by Tuesday, just remind me in case I've forgotten!) If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me here or on my talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phantom. Got a reply from the team. Thanks for the reply though. And surely, the points you've mentioned are extremely helpful for future action. Warm regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I've proposed discussions for a new proposal at Wikipedia:VPR#Policy proposal to restrict editing powers of administrators on articles where they have undertaken administrative action .28either on the article or other editors.29 ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you got a reply from the ACC team - I didn't get a chance to ask them last night, sorry! Also, as you will probably know by now, I've commented on your policy proposal at VPR. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the reply. And also appreciate the response on the the policy proposal. It's quite an experience proposing and seeing the discussions. Thanks again for the effort ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

International Shows

The redirect International Shows should not be speedy deleted. It's unclear if your nomination was because it was previously nominated for deletion or because it is an implausible redirect - the speedy tag when you blanked it says the other.

I've added a hangon and a comment on the talk page justifying the redirect.

This really should be at WP:RfD. If you take it to RfD, International Show Records, a companion redirect, should also be sent for discussion. The discussion should be announced on Talk:Dalida and Talk:Orlando (label) as those are closely related articles.

A bit of history:

At one time many Dalida-related articles linked to International Shows and/or International Show Records. I cleaned them up but the fact that they were in so many articles is good enough reason to leave the redirects around.

Please remove the speedy-deletion tag. If you believe this should be deleted, please use RfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you're correct. I was mistaken in proposing a CSD under the "previously deleted criteria". For information, I had created the article much earlier and after having had a prod del tag put by another author, had requested the article be deleted. Thus the confusion. Secondly, I think you'll need to provide reliable sources to prove Orlando was known as International Shows in the RfD. I tried searching myself, but couldn't find definitive citations for the same. Do tell me if you need any further assistance. Thanks for the message. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• 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) 15:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinions vs. editorials

Do you understand my explanation on the difference between "opinion" as a general term and "opinion piece" or editorial or op-ed? It's been a few days since you replied there, so if the explanation makes sense and we've come to a consensus, it would be good for you to leave a short note saying so. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Missed the change on my watchlist. I've left a reply on the noticeboard. Will follow it closely. Thanks for the message. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I do find it somewhat interesting that you've proposed additional rights for people to help move along discussions on WP:RSN, but that you haven't actually replied to my questions in 3 days. The best way for you to move that discussion along is to be prompt in your own responses and to be succinct and clear about your arguments. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I can only say sorry for the delay. Will do so right now. Warm regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 12:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting right back to this. I responded; I think we can close that discussion and move on to the proposed policy change. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think so too. Thanks again for reminding me. Regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 02:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration Committee Ruling (BLP Deletions)

Hi Wifione! As per this thread, I have made this edit, which I think clarifies the matter. I hope you agree. :) Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I've editing edited your wordings. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Saw your re-write. Though, I wouldn’t say you “corrected” so much as edited enhanced it, which is in keeping with the collaborative, collegial process to which we Wikipedians all subscribe. <grin> Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

lol. tc ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Osmania University

Correct the template in the article on line 221.Instead of hiding the affiliated collages they should be displayed in the article, we do not need ELs under separate sections .Use twinkle wisely Please check the edits you revert they maybe constructive ;).--123.237.193.11 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually my only concern is that you should necessarily be undertaking discussions before blanking out sections/content. It's good practise. In rollbacks, one doesn't generally sit down and argue the merits of one perspective over another, but just tries to resolve a clear cut blanking issue. If your IP were on the whitelist, this wouldn't have happened. Unfortunately, it's not. My suggestion - discuss first! If nobody responds for, say, a couple of days, put your version in with a good edit summary/link to the discussion on the discussion page. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What's a white list and a black list please Thanks for the suggestion (123.237.193.11 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)).

Oh, sorry for using technical wordings. Whitelist user-ids/IPs are those that are maintained by our IRC Channels as established editors (in other words, editors with lesser probability of committing mistakes). Those that are not, are flagged down in our IRC Channel. Given that you seem to be a genuine editor, I should suggest you take up a user id and start contributing to different articles. After a few edits/days, you will automatically be added to our whitelist. Feel free to write back for any help in the future. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

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

Darbari Family

Thanks for that, you don't need to feel bad about it. I just felt like some of that content might have a place in the encyclopedia, even if having it's own article wasn't really warranted. Still, the article as it stood was very poor, and in that state probably shouldn't be here. I suppose deletion wasn't the worst option in the end. Anyway, thanks for the message! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from a sockpuppet

Hi, you got me!

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridew 09:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, when you file an SPI you are supposed to specify the suspected sockpuppet(s). Ditto if you tag a user's talk page. If you are referring to Jack's history, you need to read his user page again. If you are claiming there's a new sock puppet, specify it, there's no way an investigation can take place otherwise. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

see the report Doug. It's been updated. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, replied on my talk page also, such misunderstandings happen, I'm sure I've done similar things. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Hello Wifione,

In List of Harry Potter characters, you reverted many edits at once, most of them which were rights : About R.A.B. and Edwig for example. I agree that the mark about Avery was suspect : I was investigate it myself. Still, I think that you should not have reverted all of the edits. I let you finish the investigation about Avery and fix the article properly.

Regards,

Heracles31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC).

Go ahead. Add statements with Reliable Sources yourself to the article. I have no issues. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 16:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Refs from HP-Lexicon and Rowling's own page. Heracles31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• 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) 04:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes

The article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes may be helpful. In general, towns and secondary schools are almost always regarded as notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User blp delete

Template:User blp delete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Scott. Left the reply on the discussion page. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

sig

I find it almost impossible to read your sig, and the coloring is such that I have difficulty even reading any text near it. Please consider changing it. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. No problems. Tell me if this is readable. If it's not, do leave a message and I'll make it simpler, cutting out the special characters. Sometimes, in older browsers which do not have supporting fonts, the signature becomes worse. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking now at the markup. The change in color does help, but the real problem is the effect of the characters with the underline diacritics and the shadow style. The impression which it gives is that of a general blurriness. I appreciate seeing it that this may be the effect you intended, and I hate to object to creativity. I always liked to play with character sets myself, I even used multiple type balls back when I used a typewriter. A shadow effect, no matter how achieved, works much better on large type--but large sigs are a very bad idea because they disrupt the flow of comments. I have a suggestion--you have a rather complicated user page, and it could use some text effects to set off the various areas. In particular, its a nice place to use some color. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually you're right. My user page is actually a bit cluttered. In fact, more than cluttered :) I think I did that (added to the page) over the months and my mind kind of overlooked the clutter. You know how it is when you're very comfortable with the way your things are organised and your friend walks into the room (lol). An offer - if you wish, you could go ahead and work things out on my user page at your convenience. I'll anyway manage to do it over this weekend :) And ya, if you would wish my signature to be <sig>like something that you might wish to suggest</sig>, just leave your markup here and voila: I'll copy it! :) Thanks for the message and have a lovely evening. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Sarparah Qaumi Ittehad

Hello Wifione. I am just letting you know that I deleted Sarparah Qaumi Ittehad, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  18:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to clarify, you tagged it as {{db-nonsense}}. The nonsense speedy deletion criteria is for articles like: "gureoh wehoisou uo sgh;rejkgj" or "Banana cheese ferret", stuff like that. I deleted it under CSD:A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject; this means it was written in english, but you don't know what it's actually about, there's no context. It could possibly have gone as a test page as well. GedUK  10:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

True. I think I took the term 'nonsense' too literally :) Appreciate your reply. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Oh, and I meant to say, to use the talback template, use {{tb|Your user name|section on the talk page (optional)}} GedUK  11:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes yes. Generally use Twinkle. But sometimes, to leave a personal silly touch message (like the ridiculous {{talkingback}}template I left on your talk), I leave a typewritten message :) Thanks Ged. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• 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) 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Rigoberto Ochoa

Hello Wifione. I am just letting you know that I deleted Rigoberto Ochoa, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. SoWhy 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I tagged it under that criteria after seeing the word "beastly" to describe a (supposed) football player in one line. I thought the word was enough to constitute a personal attack. But I'm sure your criteria would have been appropriate too. Thanks for the message. Appreciate it. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume that the article was created by the person it was about (Rigobertomchs (talk · contribs)) and as such was meant to be an incorrect characterization of said person rather than an attack. Regards SoWhy 19:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Valid to assume that. Thanks for the message. Best ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My 'bad' edit on my RfA

As I explained in the edit summary when I reverted, it was a mistake!

When I'm using my mobile phone to check, I usually login using this account, my alternative one. However, although I had previously logged on using this account (as you can see in the history of my talk page after your edit, I had left you a message!) - but I closed the browser by mistake. When I went back in, I had to log in again, and accidently logged in with my main account (out of habit!)

Now my screen is only about 2 by 3 inches (5.1 by 7.6 cm) - and my thumb is 1 inch (2.5 cm) wide, so sometimes when I click to go to a page, it actually clicks on the "rollback" (or "history") links - that's why I try to go in as this account (apart from security), as I don't have rollback on that one!

Anyway, I thought I'd let you know in a bit more detail what happened (I've let MaterialScientist know as well, as they had originally left a question on my talk page about it, although it was removed when I reverted my edit), as it was your edit on my RfA that was rolled back by mistake! I had just finished replying to MS's question (I can reply to short messages, I just can't create new sections or edit long messages) and when I tried to save, I got a 'this section does not exist' message! I'm now on a friend's computer, so I can type properly!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 16:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's very sweet of you to leave a message. It wasn't required anyway as I understood it. My best wishes and congratulations again for the wonderful response on your RfA. It shows the community's perception about you. Best regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD vs CSD vs ...

You can also WP:PROD utterly obscure stuff like narbot. No point in having an AfD discussion over something like that unless someone objects to the prod. They can do that for any reason, but even newbies don't object to a well written prod summary that links to the relevant guideline, e.g. WP:GNG. Pcap ping 08:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right of course. Your point makes more sense as AfD discussions are anyway over stressed, because of the ongoing BLP referrals. Let me encourage myself to use Prods more often :) Best ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed policy change

Hi Wifione, I've replied at WP:VPP and tried to clarify my question for you. Hopefully the additional example will help you understand. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi WS. Sure. Thanks. Will look into it soon in this session. Rgds ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagging articles as dead end

I wonder if it is necessary to tag articles as dead end, need to be wikified if they have been up for less than one half-hour. I think you are going overboard with the tagging. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll swim back from being overboard :) You have a point surely. Let me hold back. Thanks for the message ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It is much appreciated. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Indian villages

The article List of Indian villages has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

partial list, thus of no value especially since there is a category to cover this

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 your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deb (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It wasn't clear whether you were going to add any more to it. Deb (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Wifione/Archive 2010 (Jan Feb) - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary

About you nominating this article for deletion. I will try to get more references and please tell me what else i should do to get this off the deletion list.Thank you-KingdomHearts25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingdomHearts25 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I have added another source. Can you tell me if that is reliable enough?-KingdomHearts25

Frankly, I might not vouch for the link. It's a link of a website which doesn't look like a newspaper. Might I suggest you to find out sources such as NYT, Times of India, Hindu, Tribune, Hindustan Times, Pioneer, DNA, Washington Post etc? It'll help resolve the AfD immediately. Rgards, ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary

I have found another link which is more reliable . —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingdomHearts25 (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Go to the Articles for Deletion link that is provided on top of the page in question, and post all the links you've found out there. Let other editors decide whether they are reliable or not (I think one of them will qualify as reliable, though I don't know whether the article will qualify still for being kept; however, no harm in trying). Write back for any help. But be sure to leave your comments on the AfD noticeboard. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please do not disguise what you are doing by marking edits as minor and calling them typos when you're actually changing the text. You may want to review the guidelines on what actually constitutes a minor edit. Even without marking things as minor, this is not the first time you have said you're doing one thing in the edit summary when you actually did something else. If you think it's the right thing to do, then you should be able to be honest about it. If you feel you have to hide what you're doing by calling it something else, maybe you should reconsider even doing the edit. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly WS, I think you're getting too worked up about something that's not intended to be the way you perceive it to be. If you feel my description misled you, my apologies. Best regards, ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 13:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If this was the first time, or an isolated incident, I would have thought nothing of it. This particular edit is hardly the most egregious example, after all. For example, here you neglected to mention that you were taking out the part about possible prosecution. In one of the more overt examples from December, you claimed you were moving text to a footnote but you actually just deleted it all. I could point out other examples, but I'm sure you see the pattern. As this is repeated behavior, it's either an issue where you are careless in your editing or where you are deliberately trying to hide what you're doing. I don't really care which underlying cause it is here, I just want to see your edit summaries become more accurate, whatever the reason for their past inaccuracies. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WS, as much as I think, you're reading too much into it. The minor edit added a date, nothing else. It's a formatting change and is considered minor. I've given a note that I'm removing Original synthesis and repeats in the other edit and consider it appropriate as an edit summary. Anyway, I'm sure you must've read my message above. I have no intentions of investing my time arguing with you on this issue. Feel free to keep pointing out my edit summaries if you feel they mislead you. I'll try and help you understand each of my edit summary and consider whether they were/are what you might think. Here, I consider this discussion closed; unless you wish to write more. Best ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 14:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what constitutes a minor edit. "Formatting" means something like adding bold or italic to the text. Adding or removing text is specifically not a minor edit, even if you only add a word or two. This isn't Nineteen Eighty-Four where you can simply say that a word means what you want it to mean and that ends the discussion. I don't care whether you reply to me or not (although I expect you will, as you usually want the last word, in spite of your claim that you don't want to argue with me). Just understand that I am aware of this behavior pattern and will call you out on it if it continues. As long as you stop doing it, then I don't think there's anything more to discuss. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So here's the last word :) WS, please, relax. You've just gotten worked up over something that's not required. My apologies are considerately put across to you in good faith. Best always. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 14:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WiFi, you do not I think understand the concern. Most of us with large watchlists ( I for example have over 2000 pages on mine) have our watchlist preferences set to ignore minor edits--or else they would be totally un-usable) Thus, any change you make and label "minor" we will not see at all--we will not see your edit summaries, not matter how much they may clarify your intentions. This impairs our ability to check for updates, and for not just errors, but the corrections of errors. Please help us all out by not marking errors as minor if they add or remove or change information from the article. Even changing a date is a major edit--as it needs to be, because people changing dates slightly just for the hell of it is one of the most common forms of vandalism , and one that is very difficult for readers to spot. In other words, this is something that matters. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi DDG. Leaving the minor edits that are made through Huggle, Twinkle or other automated tools, you must have seen that I have made only one minor edit in the last 1000 edits as per my count (I may have missed some other edit, though that is improbable) . I suspect the same would be the case if you consider my past 2000 edits (although I haven't checked). The one minor edit in question goes by the following diff. The sentence "and received the DNA & Stars of the Industry group’s Innovative B-School Award for Innovative Teaching Methodology" was changed to "and received the DNA & Stars of the Industry group’s Innovative B-School Award for Innovative Teaching Methodology in February 2010." I believed the edit could never be the subject of any dispute (thus, marked it as 'minor'). I would have been surely better off to mark it as a normal edit like my other edits, as there was no bad faith attempt by me while marking it as minor (in the sense, neither was I trying to hide a vandalism attempt, or trying to pass off a deliberate error out of other editors' watchlists). More importantly, it would have saved you and WS the time invested in communicating your disagreement on what constitutes a minor edit (point 5 please). Therefore, in the same manner as I have communicated to WS above, let me also communicate to you that I appreciate your message on my talk and put across my apologies to you in good faith. Warm regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 14:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• 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) 13:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

when speedy is best

Sometime speedy is much more appropriate than prod--for example, Murali krishna makes no plausible assertion of notability, and is the sort of article routinely gotten rid of by speedy A7--usually there are several dozen a day just like it. I'm leaving it a while for you to look at, and then I will delete it. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point. The author had written that this person is the winner of "the Best Leader Award from Vijaya Evening College, Bangalore." The college is (most probably) a part of the Kurukshetra University, and I had no idea of checking whether the award is notable or not. I presumed it would be good to allow the author to provide reliable sources - so prodded the article. However, you're right. It could've been nominated for speedy deletion. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 14:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

the reasoning is that the best student leader award from a college would not conceivably make someone notable, so it wouldnt matter if there were sources. ` DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but the award is "Best Leader" and not "Best Student Leader"... And ya, I would've acted differently from you and waited for the author to give sources...although your call is probably better in this case than mine. Regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 17:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

• News and notes: $2 Million donation, cybersquatting, comScore statistics and more

• In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Hi! Can you please change your signature? It is not good to look at. Thanks in advance, Geschichte (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've actually been told that before. Guess it's time to give it a shot. Let me try and change the part you don't like. Would you wish me to take out the shadow? Or would it be the special characters? Or the blue colour? Or all? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

How's this, for a start? ▒ WiFiΘnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Or this? ▒ Wifione ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)