User talk:Wifione/Archive 2011 (April)

Account Creator Flag on Alternate Account

This flag is designed to be only given to those accounts who are going over the 6 account per day limit on a frequent basis or who specifically need it. You have created no accounts on your alternate account and thus you should not have the Account Creator flag on that account. If you wish to discuss this further please take it up with the admins and developers of the ACC project who are responsible for how that flag is used. As for the other flags that is between you and Prodego but I also stand by his stance of unless you need them you should not have them wether you can give them to yourself willy nilly or not. I will be making a proposal to ammend the policy tomorrow to such an effect. If the assignment of Accountcreator to your alternate account (that does not need it) continues I will discuss stripping ACC access from you on the mailing list. You should not be creating accounts for other people in public places so why your alt has account creator is beyond me.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, as to you why you would want the edit filter flag (Which is potentially dangerous) on an account that only use for public or fast editing is also questionable and smacks of flagwhoring.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect I might have slighted you perhaps in some way. Though I am not able to understand how, if that's the case, my apologies in advance. Administrators do have the ability to grant and remove account creator, rollback, ipblock-exempt rights, confirmed user, auto-reviewer, and edit filter manager rights to other users, and to their own alternate accounts. You might wish to call that "flagwhoring," a term I doubt I understand. The account creator right can also be used to edit edit filters. Notwithstanding that, as you realize, my alternate account is for use while in public places, and I believe that creation of an alternate account on any administrator's part is a good faith attempt to ensure safety of the administrative account. If you wish to modify policy and write that administrators should not be allowed to give their alternate accounts any rights, please go ahead and propose such a policy. If you believe that my ACC access should be stripped, kindly do go ahead and discuss that too on the mailing list. If you wish my assistance, whatsoever, with respect to any information you may need to prepare such a policy updation or mailing list discussion, I shall assist you. Thanks and best regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 12:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Promethean, this is ridiculous. The assignment of the account creator flag, while useful to ACC, is not controlled by anyone other than the Wikipedia community as a whole. There are some issues with having AFE and IPBE without a reason - but account creator is mostly just unneeded rather than harmful or dangerous. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the ACC tool. Wifi - that seems reasonable to me, with two suggestions: 1) if you end up using a public computer that is blocked, you should probably consider unblocking it before giving yourself IPBE. Other users might be hit as collateral damage as well. If it isn't possible to unblock for whatever reason than IPBE is the way to go. Account creator lets you edit edit notices, not edit filters, and strictly speaking isn't supposed to be used to edit them. But since you are an admin anyway it wouldn't be unreasonable to have account creator for that. Otherwise it doesn't do much of interest unless you intend to create more than 6 accounts in 24 hours. Prodego ^talk 14:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Prodego. Much obliged with your reply. The edit edit filters part was a continuous loop-mistype. I meant edit notices only. Thanks again. Look forward to seeing you around. Best wishes. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My error

Hello, I made a mistake with "request #61060" I don't know how, but I missed seeing the users comment. I would have concluded just as you that there was a problem with the request. I'm not sure what the best corrective action would be. Acknowledging a mistake doesn't fix things so I realize it is an open issue. I will ask others for opinions, and you may know a solution which would be great. Thanks for letting me know, and I apologize for dropping the ball on that one. Best regards. My76Strat (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi My76. Good to see you here. The mistake seems an honest one. The best route right now would be to inform the interface administrators like Alex, Del, Stwalkerster or others so they know of this issue and take appropriate action. I would be blocking this account in some time, in case they do not take action on it. Thanks for the acknowledgement. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 22:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

GiovBag

Hi Wifione. I'm sorry to annoy you, but I've to report again user GiovBag (blocked 2 days ago for edit war) for his behavior. Pages are the same of previous editwars: Lega Nord,Liga Veneta,Lega Lombarda, Lega Nord Piemont, Padania. Discussion about his edits arehere and, as you can see, he hasn't consensus. Here it is probably not relevant, but he is taking on an editwar also on it.wiki (where was rollbacked by three different users). If you prefer I can report problem here. Thanks and bye --Tia solzago (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'll watch him for a few days. It's not appropriate to do anything right now in my judgment. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok; I'll undo his edits and I'll contact him in his talk page. Bye --Tia solzago (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and one last (rambly) question

Thanks for following up. I don't entirely agree with Big's block, but then I guess that's why I'm not an admin.  :)

My question; would it have been better for those of us in disagreement with X4n6's edit to have just let his/her edit stand while we engaged in conversation (given that he/she obviously wasn't going to let the reverts stand)? That's the part that's been confusing me. X4n6 kept bringing up BRD but my understanding of that concept runs contrary to how X4n6 seemed to be using it.

In general, I'd say that's the major problem we're having with the discussions regarding this incident. It seems my understanding of the various linked policies and guidelines (IMDB, 3rr, Disruptive editing, etc.) is the exact opposite of what X4n6 is getting out of them. I'm confident in my interpretations of the links that are directly related to the Film Project's guidelines (IMDB is fine as an external link but not a source for an inline citation, for example). But I'm starting to question how I think of the site-wide, editing behavior policies that have been brought up. Clearly either I am reading them wrong or X is for us to have such wildly different interpretations. Heck, maybe it's both of us.

Again, thanks for the follow up and any guidance you can provide.Millahnna (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Millahnna. Again at the outset, apologies for how this might have turned out. But perhaps my reasoning would make it clearer. As long as an editor does not individually cross the 3RR in a particular 24 hour period, there would be no issue he or she would face from any administrator or editor. For example, in case a tendentious editor had started reverting (and I am particular to note that I am not pointing out to any particular editor here as a tendentious editor), a group of like minded editors who believed the tendentious editor's reversion was against consensus could have reverted the editor's edits separately; and then the moment the tendentious editor reached the fourth revert in a 24 hour period, one of you could again revert him (provided you did not cross 3RR with that revert) and then report that particular editor to the 3RR board. Now, the issue is, in case the argument is simply about poor sourcing, the 3RR still cannot be crossed by any individual editor. In case there is a clearcut BLP issue, I would still recommend taking the issue to both the 3RR noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard rather than crossing the 3RR individually. Yes, in clear cut cases of vandalism, or if the article were on the main page, or if the article itself were a BLP, then I would have seen the issue much differently. Does that answer your query? Please do feel free to write up any further clarification you may require. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 08:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes that does clear things up, particularly where you specified vandalism and BLP policies over sourcing concerns in general. I have a much better idea now of where you were coming from and what to do in the future to avoid something similar. I still have my concerns about the editor in question due to his misreading of film project (and other) guidelines, as well as some of the other communication strangeness that has gone on with this issue. But if those issues continue to present problems, I'll have a better idea of how to deal with it. Millahnna (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lega Nord

Unfortunately, is not possible reach any consensus with this guys in Lega Nord. They are activist and is not the forst time. They requested references, I give them another 4 (BBC, Der Spiegel, universities and institutes in Europe), but they have ignored and deleted [1]. They boycott wikipedia to defend a political party. Following your advice I will not revert, nor fall into provocations. But someone should do something, or not? Regards.--GiovBag (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)§

Sorry if I interrupt you, but what can we do when the editors don't discuss, but that obstruct and delete the reference?[2]--GiovBag (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wifione, I have edited virtually all the articles about Italian parties and my work on en.Wiki is widely appreciated. I don't think that I deserve to be considered a partisan editor and a Lega Nord supporter because I am neither of the two. Other users could be offended by GiovBag’s remarks too, and especially Tia solzago, who is a respected administrator in it.Wiki. GiovBag seems to bring editwar wherever he goes instead (see for instance this). --Checco (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, will look into this today sometime later. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Helping

I am grateful Wifione--Despotović (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delayed response. You're welcome. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

Could you have a look at my comments on User talk:Bignole, and consider unblocking if you see fit. I see no gain in letting the block run its course. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

•   Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

why are you removing? it seems fine —Precedingunsigned comment added by 203.91.119.19 (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• What? Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, What's going on in Nvidia_PureVideoand why is is protected so much? —Precedingunsigned comment added by Telekenesis (talk •contribs) 09:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

URGENT - Please delete the argument on Kourosh Kalantar-zadeh URGENTLY

This is from Kourosh Kalantar-zadeh.

Please do me an URGENT favour Please delete the argument and archive on Kourosh Kalantar-zadeh's Profile deletion URGENTLY I do not wish to see this or anything else about me. I requested to delete both "profile" and "the discussion archive page"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kourosh_Kalantar-Zadeh

However, only the profile was deleted. Professionaly I do not need to have this page or my name to appear anywhere in Wiki.

Thanks for the help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.132 (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Wait till it gets archived in a few more hours; I'll blank it after 24 hours. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 08:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Is it common practice to delete or blank archived material based solely on a talk page request by the alleged subject?Taroaldo (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is. See WP:BLPDELETE, though I'm not sure if verification through OTRS is necessary. Goodvac (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
      • edit conflict with Goodvac post I understand the concern around biographies, but this is an AfD archive in which there is nothing overtly offensive. This is a record of a community discussion: if it can be erased simply by a talk page request then there is something wrong with the procedures. I've seen lots of vandalism or other inappropriate actions over time by people claiming to be the subject or an agent acting on behalf of the subject. Only once have I seen a claim such as that proven true. Taroaldo (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't disagree that we need to be wary when handling such requests, which is why I commented about OTRS verification. I don't know much about that, so perhaps Wifione can address that.
          The discussion will not be inaccessible—courtesy blanking entails blanking the discussion and not deleting the page. The discussion would be preserved and could be viewed through the page history.Goodvac (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Alison (talk · contribs) just blanked the discussion with an OTRS ticket. Looks like this is resolved. Goodvac (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm, but the accounts that have been blanking the AfD, Editor Melbourne (talk · contribs), 58.163.175.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 58.163.175.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)appear to be sockpuppets of Kkalantar (talk · contribs), the article's subject. Kourosh Kalantar-zadeh (talk · contribs) is another that is not blocked. Goodvac (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just let him be. Agf and handle with sensitivity; so... Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 13:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Mitchell Heisman

I find it absolutely ridiculous, and almost dangerous, that you have deleted the post on Mitchell Heisman. I previously viewed wikipedia as an exceedingly complete and incredibly reliable source. Repression of knowledge of such a person, whose work it is only necessary to peruse once in order to immediately recognize its importance, is wrong and incredibly shortsighted of you. I am confident that within, at the very most, five years, you will have no choice but to recognize this mans importance, and whats more i believe that, as i have seen others say in the discusion over this article, this will cause a serious loss of credibility for wikipedia in the eyes of a lot of people. I know it has for me.

---

Luke Vadala —Preceding unsigned comment added by142.157.94.7 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please feel free to recreate the page once you have read extremely relevant details in WP:BIO and WP:Five pillars. Please write back for any other assistance you might need. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I told you, i no longer respect wikipedia. why write an article again when you have already removed it against overwhelming support? more than 2-1? this could not be possibly construed as anything else other than the repression of ideas that scare you; while i do not completely agree with the mans ideas, he raises some points that are absolutely essential for our society to confront. You can quote your little laws to achieve whatever you want, but obviously it is not the rules you are respecting but your own agenda. i dont need to read any rules to know that this man is important. it pains me that the people who control wikipedia, tyrannically, it seems, when one sees the repression of this page against such support, do not have the insight to see what i can see just from reading a few pages of the mans work; that is important, not just as a news story, but as history. in in this light, as i have said, i can no longer truly respect wikipedia, and therefor i will not attempt to put the page up again. It will not be long before it happens of its own accord and you are unable to repress it, no matter how hard you try. Luke Vadala —Preceding unsigned comment added by142.157.94.71 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• That's unfortunate and wasn't intended of me that you lose respect of Wikipedia. If you need help in recreating the article, do tell me anytime in the future. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

i personally don't care about calling this deletion "repression" or spouting conspiracy theories - after all, one can find the book and details about the author's life easily enough. i do, however, find it remarkable that you deleted an article contrary to a vast majority of 'keep' votes on the basis that they were "unworthy." I would suggest a wikipedia re-write on the article entitled "democracy" to reflect these new rules, or perhaps that wifione admit that throwing out votes because one doesn't agree with the rationale behind them is only done in places with very long names (The People's Democratic Republic of ____________, etc.) secondly, i find it highly remarkable that it isn't obvious to you that this person's details belong on wikipedia at least as much as many less-interesting articles. if you've ever clicked 'random' on the home page, it's more or less guaranteed that you've been taken to a page that you (and many others) have found wholly uninteresting. why does this article exist? evidently wifione hasn't got to it yet. re-publish the mitchell heisman page. it hurts nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by71.198.151.24 (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Autopatrolled

Thanks for the approval, and for your prompt attention to my request. Makes my day. — ℜob C. aliasᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

how do....

Shiva (Visnu) 05:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, when you have some time can you please share your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Pakistan (2nd nomination)? Thanks, Shiva (Visnu) 06:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi hero. Good to see you around again. I shouldn't wish to leave my opinion on an area I might not be competent at. However, I'll keep a watch on the AfD. When do you wish to get nominated for adminship? Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

Hey man, - I will stay in touch and contact you when I feel ready. Adminship will take some time, owing to my absence these couple of months. I will be working on WP:AFDs and CAT:CSD, building my knowledge. I also must deliver on the FA I promised.Shiva, Lord Black Adder 05:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. - re the AfD, what is concerning me is that nobody else has yet logged an opinion, not even the creator of the article. I think I'll have to notify on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan. Shiva, Lord Black Adder05:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Shiva, Lord Black Adder 06:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to crticize....

any of your work but should you have really declined Pesky's autorev request I mean he has only created two articles but both were well referenced and notable. I've gotten into trouble for criticizing people for there work and I, in no word of lie, hope you are not offended.But is there any chance of you reconsidering. mauchoeagle 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Maucho, my apologies for a delayed reply. While fifty is a suggested benchmark, if an editor has just created two articles, I'd not be able to grant autoreviewer rights to such an editor. Creation of articles is the gold standard to understand an editor's trustworthiness on the autoreviewer scale. There may be other administrators ready to grant the request to Pesky - though I should be surprised if any administrator does so. My apologies, again. Thanks and kind regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message}

I agree and I was beginning to think that you were offended by the message and didnt want to answer it but I see you may not have seen it. Also can you delete this page for me: [3]. The editor who was being nominated for adminship has declined which, under RfA standards, means that it does not count as an RfA and is eligible for deletion under the G6 criteria. mauchoeagle 17:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Maucho. I guess Eagles deleted it yesterday. Good to see you around. Write back for any future assistance. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

Regarding Priyanka Chopra article's full protection

The page doesn't need to be fully protected, as far as I know there wasn't any big dispute regarding the signature. It was just thatGaneshBhakt came out of no where and uploaded; Signature of Priyanka Chopra.svg, which is the SVG version of; PriyankaChopra Signature.jpg, which I digitalised and uploaded 4 months ago. The article was going fine with that signature itself, there was no need of a vectorised version. I didn't think it was necessary at all, I felt it was a sort of vandalism reusing an uploaded file without the permission or notifying the uploader (i.e. me). So I undid that revision a few times (less than 4 times: you can check), user GaneshBhakt too undid my edits a couple of times, that's it. I didn't even knew, when it was termed edit warring. But it had all stopped 1 day prior to the full protection. I assure you that the edit warring won't happen anymore atleast regarding the signature. According to me that dispute is solved, so I suggest you to revert back to semi-protection. The article will suffer, if its locked like this for months. Prajwal ^talk 07:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please do undertake your discussion on the talk page and reach a consensus on the issue. I am watching that page. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

You said to use your talk page for clarification, and that's what we are doing. Locking the page for 5 months for just 4 back and forth edits seems like extreme overkill. Why did you do it? BollyJeff || talk 15:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bolly. I have no intentions of keeping full protection indefinitely. The protection was initiated because of the signature issue, where - given your recent comments on the talk page - I realize that consensus has still not been reached. I am quite open to removing the full protection, provided participants show on the page that they the edit war would not continue. For your benefit, I am initiating a discussion on the signature issue on the article's talk page in a purely administrative capacity. Once I see that discussions have resumed amiably, I shall lift the full protection soon. Irrespective of my reply, you still have the option of requesting the page to be unprotected using the relevant forums. Do write back in case you have any further issues. Best. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, Wifione. I am sure that there won’t be edit warring regarding the signature. There is no use rekindling the useless discussion over-and-over again. I actually didn’t know that WP prefers vector images over raster images; I felt it’s a kind of vandalism, but as per WP it isn’t. After knowing this I am fine with the SVG version, and there won’t be any edit warring. If there are any issues in future I will discuss it in the talk page rather than edit dispute, but in the current issue there is nothing to be solved, why you can’t understand. Either one of us should stop; I will be the one who will stop as I am fine with the SVG version now and when I have stopped why would User:GaneshBhakt start any issue again? Lift the full protection now; nobody is interested in the baseless discussion of the signature. You administrators sometimes just exaggerate small issues into major ones. Trust me it’s of no use making an issue out of this. Why don't you revert back to semi-protection as earlier, and you can easily lock it again if you see any further dispute within the page. It there is any issue I will be the first person to notify you. I request you to lift the full protection and check for any dispute in the page; lock it only if you see any further issue. Please it’s enough now!Prajwal ^{Contact me} 14:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Unsourced BLP Rescuers

Category:Unsourced BLP Rescuers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sure. Thanks for the message. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

ISB

Wifione -- I'm confused... You write:

According to ISB, AICTE does not have rules to recognize ISB's short duration programs.[2] As of August 2010, AICTE had started approving short duration programs too.[3]

... so how is the is a controversy? My2011 (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi My2011. Sorry to run into you on a reversion wave. There is actually much to write on this. ISB's non-approval from AICTE is a controversial issue in India (more to the benefit of ISB) as AICTE doesn't wish it to run the courses without taking AICTE approval. Even the Indian Parliament apparently has had many members raise the issue while in session. There's much to write on this. But is there any suggestion you wish to make to the lead? Please do mention. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 20:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Hey there. Thanks -- I thought AICTE was a resolved controversy. Didn't you write that "short duration programs are okay"? Also, I wrote something on the ISB talk page about the "history" sections you took out ... what was wrong with them? I didn't write a lot of it, but I think it's very much verifiable and important. And I think the lede is okay as it stands, though may get cleaned up in subsequent revisions. My2011 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at Sumsum2010's talk page.
Message added 23:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipal_University

• See this article
• See the style of writing
• In comparison the Amity University page has nothing
• You have removed most of it!!!!!
• What general information should be there, is now removed because you cal it glorification - then what should we put in there?????? -keep the article as a stub??????
• I don't wish to start an edit war, but all I am saying is either you change every other Indian university page, or let the Amity University page follow the style of these pages - thats all
• I know about glorification - having helped prevent it on the page for RSS and Bajrang Dal, I m not going to be doing it, but let me put up credible information to get that article somewhere close to at least a C

)

--Pranav (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

ROADMAP FOR REVIEWERS

I have 2 reasons for generating this communication: 1. i still need a "ROADMAP FOR REVIEWERS". 2. Apparently, I also need a "roadmap for picking up mail" (at the help desk).

1a. Whomever my son gets to "review" his document, that person will likely have the same difficulty that I did. I would be very grateful if someone would respond to me, by providing a link to the page upon which the reviewer certifies that he has reviewed the article. Additionally, some basic instruction about what actions to perform on that page, plus a description of the location on that page, where the action is to take place.

2a. I am ignorant about how to "pick up mail" at the help desk. There is mail currently waiting to be picked up by me. Additionally, I need to know how to "pick up" your response to my item 1a.

Thank you in advance for your forthcoming understanding and help. 71.106.160.242 (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael Thys

why would you delete him? He has done more in his role in a movie than you have ever done in your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by24.253.147.147 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you know Wifione isn't Barak Obama? Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)