User talk:Wifione/Archive 2010 (October)

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

Ping[edit]

You've got mail. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V[edit]

The statement you posted with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southbeach notation is rather confusing; I can't understand what you're trying to say. I'm not sure you understand what WP:V is about; WP:V is not a guideline for determining notability, and notability is not "verified" in some source (rather, it is demonstrated through the sum of coverage in various sources); WP:V is about finding a source to verify that a given fact (say, "so-and-so was born in 1954") is true. Could you please take a moment to read through WP:V and WP:N if you are going to be closing AfD debates? Also, this is a minor issue, but you might want to consider not using so many exclamation points in AfD closes. Stuff like "Delete!!!" comes across as unprofessional; it's certainly not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's an easy habit to change. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that must be a mistake of the script I'm using, which is a standard script. But thanks for pointing that out. Let me go back and check the details and clean up. And also, I've added to the close comment on the AfD and struck out one portion for the clarification. Thanks again and regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, it was the only one where there was a mistake; which presumably you corrected before I could reach :) Thanks Rjanag and best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Close of AfD for Modern empires' loss of European territory[edit]

Thankyou for closing that AFD. As the nominator, I obviously supported deletion and not a merge. In fact, I think the current situation is perhaps worse than that prevailing before the first deletion request. The reason is that the merge target,List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty, is currently tagged as needing authentication/verification by an expert, requiring additional citations (it has barely any), and needing general cleanup. The article to be merged lacks citations altogether and the accuracy of its information is hotly disputed (see the article talk page). I don't see how a merge can be effected at this moment that will improve the encyclopaedia. In fact, it seems to me that in light of the problems with the target page, the work that would need to be done to make that article (the justification for which is not, as of now, being debated) acceptable to Wikipedia's standards would lead ultimately to a complete overhaul of any information added from the existing, unreferenced "Modern empire's" article. Put another way: can the page simply be blanked and redirected to the merge target, since there is no use adding unreferenced information taken from other Wiki articles to an article currently lacking many references and tagged as needing more? Srnec (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Srnec. Hi. No, you can't do it without consensus. Start a discussion on the talk page of the article in question and then take it up from there. And also, I have no prejudice to an early AfD being opened at a future date on this target article. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Mitchell_Heisman[edit]

18 of the last 20 people voted for keep yet you deleted. The notability of this was becoming more apparent. Obviously a consensus was forming to keep.Bhny (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but remember WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy it's a dictatorship. Xtraeme (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like you both. So am leaving some views for you to think about.
  • Bhny, your keep vote was as follows: "Keep and rename Suicide Note (book)".
Bhny, you did see my closing comment. If you think the suicide note is notable, please create an article on the suicide note, not on the individual.
  • Xtraeme, your keep vote was as follows: "Keep: The primary grounds for deletion seem to be based on notability. Authoring a book and the latter suicide are plainly two separate events. Furthermore there's very clear interest outside the normal news cycles into the contents of Mr. Heisman's writings. At first glance his work is easily on the level Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto"
Xtraeme, even you saw my closing comment. If you think there's some book that you believe is notable, create an article on the book, not on the individual.
  • Both of you, pl read WP:BIO1E to understand why such articles will not be kept in general.
  • Pl also read Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates and next time, kindly use such and other policies and guidelines while voting on keeping or deleting any article, rather than just a flat statement (like yours Bhny) or an analysis bereft of any policy or guideline (like yours Xtraeme).
  • Of the other keep votes in the AfD, I saw around 15 contributors including a glut of ips (I've not counted precisely, but it's around that) who had only a handful of edits outside of the vote discussion, and in a few cases, only one or two edits. And none (I repeat, none) of the keep votes, including the votes of you both, quoted any policy/guideline or had any logic that would be pertinent to the consensus of the forum. Now go back and see how the delete voters had a massive glut of editors who are established editors, who were quoting policies/guidelines in their deletion vote support, and were not depending upon their personal opinion on this issue. I cannot close an AfD discussion based upon what I think of the article (that is, whether it can be kept or not), I have to go according to consensus, and I have theappropriate view to disregard votes that I consider are illogical, without policy basis and in utter bad faith. All of the keep votes, except two, qualified on either of the reasons of my disregarding the vote. So consensus as a closing admin was for deleting the article.
  • Now, what if you do not agree with the deletion. The process is pretty simple. Apply at WP:Deletion review and bring up the article's issue. In the review, kindly do quote any mistake in policy/procedure that you believe I have made, as also usingpolicies and guidelines to defend your case for undeletion. Write back to me for any help that you believe you might require for this, or in the future. I am sorry that the article got deleted. I cannot help it and would not have gone against my view of consensus. Best wishes. Wifione .......Leave a message 15:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even being conservative there's got to be at least six or seven keeps that should have been considered. It seems like a no-consensus, at least. I count 23-11 in favor of keeping, with the most recent 8 being keeps. To be sure, there's some oddball !votes to be ignored, but to ignore all keeps but two (which?) it seems like you're just deciding whether you agree with the argument, rather than gauging consensus. For example you mocked Ancient Infant in your closing rationale, but he or she actually offered a guideline-based reason (WP:PERP) after the statement which you mocked. That !vote should not have been discounted. Very hard to see how the consensus was to delete. Fletcher (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fletcher, good to see you here. Well, with respect to Ancient, yes, I clearly shouldn't have mocked him at all. Given the fact that I perceived the logic to be very faulty - especially the usage of WP:PERP - the statement flowed freely. My apologies for the indiscretion; I've struck out two words in the close, post your comment here. Ancient Infant, after quoting WP:PERP, commented that he himself didn't think that suicide is a crime; and then added to the statement that it was just an argument to save this article from deletion. For records, WP:PERP does mention that editors should not create an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured. Therefore, I found Ancient Infant's referral of/to policy extremely faulty. This is despite the fact that I did not consider it negatively that Ancient Infant had had only 3 edits outside his user space, and only one in the last six months, before voting in this article. I have to reiterate thatconsensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at the strength of the argument. I took an appropriate view to disregard votes that contradicted policy, were based on opinion than on fact and were utterly illogical - and Ancient Infant's vote qualified on all these points. Again, if you do believe that you should wish a deletion review, please use the appropriate link I've provided above. I have no issues in the deletion review deciding either way. But for a higher success rate in such reviews, like I mentioned to the two editors above, you should necessarily quote policy/procedural mistakes you believe I have made in closing the discussion. This might sound too altruistic, but I mean it; please do ask for my help in case you need any. My best regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 10:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the spirit of WP:PERP is that we don't want BLPs of people accused but not convicted of crimes, potentially harming their reputation. In this case, there will be no charges filed because the perp is dead, and he admitted his intentions in his book so there is little question that he did the act alleged. (Technically I'm not sure if suicide is a crime, but discharging a firearm on a school campus certainly is, and that crime is likely what precipitated the media attention). Item #3 of PERP is salient, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy…" which is clearly true in this case. I suppose this argument could be wrong, but it doesn't seem like patent nonsense. When I have time maybe I will try a deletion review, which will at least help me understand better how consensus is supposed to be measured. Thanks for your comments.Fletcher (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No issues. Thanks for the reply. Take care and best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

review[edit]

Hi - I just opened an editor review, and I request you for some advice on how I can prepare myself for adminship. I will greatly appreciate your feedback :) Shiva (Visnu) 15:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool :) Shiva (Visnu) 15:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. Shiva (Visnu) 09:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the Heisman article[edit]

Having read over the suicide note, I found it hilarious that such a well argued piece of thinking, even if by a man who killed himself to get people to read it, was deleted from this site by you for diverse policy reasons. Besides making Heisman's point that the note would be deleted by the powers that be, reading all the comments on the debate about keeping or deleting was a funny experience. Funny because I kept thinking about all the ridiculous things I CAN find on wikipedia, like the piece on the Jersey Shore program on MTV. Hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added byPahndeepah (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pahndeepah, thanks for your comments. Do kindly see my reply two levels above. In case you need any assistance, feel free to write back. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typos[edit]

Careful, you created a broken redirect at London Buses route 969! Alzarian16 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and then corrected it within seconds. That's me being too quick for my own good again :) Alzarian16 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No man, thanks for your message. It's never wrong to be too quick. Better quick than never :):) Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACC toolserver user template[edit]

Hi wifione, I understand the difference, as I have access to the acc tool, however when I went to put the userbox on my page, it looked messy and the logo seems too big for the box. All I did was changed the logo to the toolserver logo (since its a toolserver 'application') and edited the text down so it wasn't so long winded.

Although we could probably 'argue' about the wording, i thought that 'account creation rights' (not 'Account Creator rights' which i do understand is a specific permission) looked and sounded better than "ACC Tool Server Usage authorization" which people might not know what it means (The list of users page also says "Account Creation Tool users" as the title.) - Happysailor 17:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HappySailor (I love your name :)). I disagree on the deletion of "ACC Tool Server Usage authorization". You can change the logo to what you had changed, but you have to understand that ACC Tool Server usage authorisation is very different from account creation rights. Account creation is a subset of ACC Tool Server usage authorisation. Therefore, to simply write 'account creation rights' would be not correct. Cheers. Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the minor changes you agree with, however (and i said we'd probably 'argue' over it ) I must misunderstand the difference between "ACC Tool Server usage authorisation" and "account creation" (or maybe just me putting 'rights' after it?).
As I understand it, authorisation to the ACC Tool Server allows the user to create accounts that have been requested by a user that can't create one automatically, then this classes as 'account creation' as shown in the tool itself when it states 'Internal Account Creation Interface'.
I am ok at leaving it at the long winded text as the template still looks less clutered and more uniform, however I guess I will still think that it's a long way to say what needs to be said, that's all. - Happysailor 07:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For one, you can use the ACC Tool Server to code up the software that runs the interface, or approve/disapprove of new applications for joining the interface usage, or be a checkuser - all this apart from account creation. Thus :) Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACC[edit]

Nevermind all that, HJ couldn't really grant the request since he didn't know what to do. So could you re-evaluate my ACC Tool contribs and see if I'm ready for the right? Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:00pm • 05:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fridae, do kindly list your request at the appropriate page. Although my personal benchmark for giving the account creator permission is 50 users, I see you've reached the per day user creation limit at least once. Do list your request at the mentioned page and I'll take a look at it later, if nobody else has responded to your request. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to sound rude, I removed my previous posts to your talk page. HJ told me to ask you again, but I'll do as you asked. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:50am • 19:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance is requested. I am unsure about what to do with requestthe name is legitimate and doesn't break [{WP:UPOL]] my problem is that it implies the account is shared which is frowned upon, I'm going to email this person to see if the account will be shared or not. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:30pm • 06:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After using my best judgment I decided to close the request as a Username Policy vio per WP:NOSHARE and have sent an email informing them of the UPOL vio. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:50pm • 06:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good close. Remember, whenever in doubt, and there's nobody responding, simply break the reservation rather than attempting to be bold and losing your toolserver access in the process. Also, never allow an impulsive response to get in the way of highly civil communication while handling new user account requests. The ACC team, for all practical purposes, represents Wikipedia to the new user, who has more or less no idea that these are volunteers handling his/her user name request. Contribute well and enjoy the experience. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I had them notified via email. Will do. Thanks again! —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:12pm • 08:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wifione the mishandling was an error of judgment on my part it was not actually any real abuse, the other toolserver admins who were on wiki admins also never expressed any problem with my having the right and I did have need of the right because there were some considerably high traffic articles which needed editnotices about their written english format. I didn't actually create an account wrongly. Let my just clarify that.
      • I technically only mishandled 1 request, I really don't think any harm would be done if I still had the right considering that I did read the guide, I did my best to limit my mistakes and read the guide. The final mistake that caused my suspension was a large error of judgment in regards to whether I should or shouldn't drop a request or close it ask Deliriousandlost for more info about what happened, there was a large discussion on IRC.
      • Also I know editing editnotices is a side-effect of the account creator rights but if possible could I have them back? The first request was also a minor error of judgment but no email was subsequently sent, my suspension is largely just a reflection period and a time for me to understand where I went wrong and time to read up on the guide to further familiarise myself with the process itself. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:46pm • 10:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a sidenote I had also endorsed the suspension, I intend to be active on the ACC tool interface upon reactivation. The first mishandling was because I didn't read WP:UPOL correctly and assumed the name to be in violation of the policy and I subsequently corrected myself. With the 2nd request I wasn't so fortunate. No accounts were created and this isn't a suspension that will last for months. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:10pm • 11:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fridae, while I would not have given you the account creator right myself till the time you remained suspended from the ACC Toolserver, I believe Stwalkerster has already considered your request positively and re-provided you the account creator right. I do wish to mention that I have no issues with him providing the right. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010[edit]

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

Your comments[edit]

Wifione, could you explain why you referred to me as an "intermediate" editor? --Bsherr (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Intermediate. Occurring between my changes and the other editor's changes. Meant for your edits to the Vandalism policy page; not intended to cast aspersions on your editing experience overall. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trilegal[edit]

Hi Wifione, thanks for your help on the article! I have left you a message on the talk page. Please take a look when you can. Telco (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi The Telephone Company. I'd rather not initiate discussions on the talk page right now as I don't intend to develop this article further. My work was only to save the article from deletion - and the work that I've done will more or less be taken into consideration by editors participating in the AfD discussion. I'd like to suggest something here in good faith. Firstly, assuming you are a new editor, you should necessarily read up WP:ORG and WP:N before attempting to comment in deletion discussions. Always support your 'keep' or 'delete' vote quoting a policy/guideline, rather than emotionally appealing. Secondly, becivil in your discussions always. This is not to say you have or have not been civil; this is just a suggestion. Best regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the response, Wifione. I will keep this in mind. Telco (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Policy Editnotice[edit]

Was there some discussion about the edit notice on the BLP policy? It's simply wrong... no one needs prior consensus before making an edit to any policy, not even BLP. Gigs (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gigs. I see what you mean. I've added a word 'consider' and reformatted the structure. Tell me if that works. Also, as I'm the person who wrote the edit notices of most of the main policies/pillars' pages on the English Wikipedia, would it be possible for you to drop in a note out here if you see anything wrong with any other edit notice on such pages? Thanks and kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The one on BLP looks better, thanks. I'd say at a minimum copy that one to the other policies where you added an editnotice. Gigs (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Will do the rest today or tomorrow. Thanks and best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Gigs (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Filter_81_again. Ten Pound Hammer,his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)03:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ten Pound Hammer, good to see you here. Will take a look only on Monday I guess. Logged in to finish off a quick job for Off2riorob. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re:adminship[edit]

Hi - no, no skeletons :) But I will wait. I just started the review - I want to work on any concerns, get more experience of admin-related jobs. I'm in absolutely no hurry, and I definitely don't want anybody having such an impression. Believe me, I'm very grateful for your support and encouragement, but I'm sure there will be some legit concerns from good folks. I've been a contributor for 2 years, but I've been back from a long wikibreak for only 2 months. I must do more to earn confidence. Shiva (Visnu) 08:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, no issues, your call. Will await your answers to my questions on your editor review. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted my feedback. Based on the objective that you've mentioned in the ER, based on the answers to your queries, based on your past 2000 contributions, you're good to go for the RfA and would clear it with flying colours. If you want me to write the nom, do leave a message here - although I think that writing the nom yourself would be a great idea; I'll chip in and ensure that you don't miss out on critical points in your nom. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Jawad[edit]

Hi Wifione, you closed this [1] this page has again been created,Ahmad_Jawad that is at least three or four times now, it is tagged for speedy, could you please salt it so it is not a continualy issue?Off2riorob (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Deleted and salted for six months. Thanks for the message and keeping a watch. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Horse[edit]

I have been a breeder and owner of Morgan Horses for over 40 years love the breed. Sorry did not mean to offend you I felt I was being threatened. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by98.135.8.81 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look into this. I'll continue this discussion on your talk page. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wifione, I've been on this for awhile; the anon IP was blanking the whole article (including footnotes) and replacing it with what read like verbatim quotations from copyrighted material. I restored it a couple times, and so did other. So this well-intentioned user got in a little trouble for doing this and almost were nailed for 3RR. It was helpful to have the specific concerns explained, User 98 was kind enough to leave a message on my talk page regarding the issue, and I independently verified some info and went ahead and removed the image for now. Let me know if there are further concerns. WikiProject Equine is actually quite dedicated to accurate information, and Morgan horse is on our improvement list, it just takes some time to get there. In the meantime, it is more helpful when people calmly point out their concerns and offer source material that can help us out! Montanabw(talk) 01:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note Montanabw. I'll be deleting the photograph pretty soon (if it's not been deleted yet). Was awaiting time to allow other editors/administrators to give their views if they wished. I'll keep in touch with you on this. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and glad you liked the horse. I swiped the idea from someone else, I now forget who, but they did the same thing with an animation of a Texas Flag! Montanabw(talk)20:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article on W. C. (William) Pollard[edit]

I find the whole process I went thru with the "W. C. Pollard" article frustrating. The consensus was to delete the article, based on Wikipedia's policies concerning an individual's notability. I would not feel so frustrated if this policy was consistent. However, I see a number of articles about individuals who show similar levels of accomplishment or notability as does Mr. Pollard. Will you all please get together and set forth policies, so deletions are made on a consistent basis? Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to express my thoughts. John RoonyJroony (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr.Jroony, I know what you mean. There are pages on Wikipedia that shouldn't be there as per our current policies, and there are pages that should be there, but aren't. Being an encyclopaedia that operates mainly through the contributions of volunteer contributors (such as I), such a situation is inevitable. I do understand the frustration that you've gone through in creating the article in question and seeing it get deleted; and regret the issue. However, I wished to enquire whether in this whole process you have had the chance of reading a few of our key guidelines and policies that determine whether an article or an individual's biography gets to be included in Wikipedia. I've listed them down below. Whenever you get time, do go through these guidelines and policies:
Understanding these will hopefully start you off on a better footing the next time you wish to create an article on Wikipedia. You could also leave a note on my talk page any time in the future for any help you might require whatsoever, including assistance on creating any new article. I'm sorry for the experience you've gone through and hope you don't get demotivated from contributing in the future. I sincerely mean this. With regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Heisman's Deletion[edit]

Dear Final Judge and Juror,

I find the clarity of your decision very telling, but not enlightening.

Unfortunately, wikipedia like all bureaucratic organizations seeks to bring out the best in man's logic but brings out the worst in man's isolated and rationalized reason. You decision to delete Mitchell's page like your decisions to keep pages on many seemingly meaningless slices of popular culture long forgotten, is a mystery. I does not hold up by any standard and you used certain impassioned pleas as examples to silence many logical and valid ones.

I will, given time, learn more about the politics of Wikipedia. This has been a good lesson to me. I once saw this site as a source of useful information, but the people who oversee it's digital workings are truly just like Mitch, lost the discursive details of their rules. Rules that frankly, seem to treasure popularity over significance. This is not a brain bank of just and honest adults trying to establish a library of common knowledge, its a forum of hooded bureaucrats warming themselves by their own cold and contextually bankrupt logic.

This makes me very sad, but I am glad that I have be set straight on the matter.

Thank you for my lesson, I will be in touch in a more formal means, and more fitting to wikipedia's policies. My best to you, jared.nathanson@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.80.114 (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. Thanks for your message. You could note my responses to this deletion a few paragraphs above. Beyond this, if you would like me to guide you on any area in Wikipedia, do write back. Sincerely. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page· Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Peter Ralston deletion?[edit]

See subject.74.77.203.5 (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi there. Thanks for the message. The article was deleted post a deletion discussion, which you saw just a few minutes back. Please read WP:Notability and WP:BIO to understand why any article/biography has to be notable to be included on Wikipedia. Non-notable articles/biographies can be deleted at any time from Wikipedia. Also please read WP:BLP to understand that all claims within a biography of a living person, including claims of notability, have to be supported by reliable sources. As Peter Ralston's biography lacked reliable sources to support his claims of notability, the consensus during the deletion discussion was to delete the article. Therefore, I deleted the same. Still, if you believe the article was wrongly deleted, you can file a deletion review to request undeletion of the article. In case you need help in filing such a review request, message me back and I'll guide you through the steps. Sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistence of memory...[edit]

A certain apparently young user you have been communicating with reminds me of someone blocked for a fairly longish period, who also had google in his/her name. I'd have to dig a fair way back in my contribs to find who it was, but there seems to be a similarity to me... Peridon (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It'll be good if you find out. I'm tracking the user's contributions. Till now, I have to say the contributions are not vandalism oriented and seem to be the initial steps of a learning very young contributor. That's one reason I'm handling him/her with kid gloves. Wifione ....... Leave a message 20:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the other one was. Over-helpful and incapable of getting the message. Looking... Peridon (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No luck so far - I've done a restricted search of user talk pages I've made edits on and can't see a name that rings the bell, and looked back about 12 months in straight contribs. Sure I told him/her off for something. Sorry. Peridon (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to start with Google either. There's something goog in it, but I've run out of ways to filter it.Peridon (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Just keep a watch if you can. I'll do that too. Thanks and have a nice evening. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Name Change[edit]

Hi Wifione,

Thanks for reviewing some of my submitted material and user name. It looks like I didn't follow the user name rules very well as I put my company name in my user name. Sorry! Can I have it changed or should I make a new account?

Thanks, Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by74.93.7.132 (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested[edit]

I have started an RfC on inappropriate userboxes, i.e. those that don't follow the introductory paragraph at WP:UBX:

"A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box ... designed to appear only on a Wikipedian'suser page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles."

How does a userbox about a user's own preferences in regards to what topics on Wikipedia they hate and what type of sexually explicit material they like and actively view help Wikipedians collaborate with one another? Which is the question I am raising.

This introductory paragraph over at WP:UBX contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED so I'd like you to weigh in at WT:UBX, it'll only take 5 minutes of your time. I've sent this message because the topic has not had much community input

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 20:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

User Name Change Followup[edit]

Hello Wifione,

I sent you a message earlier without signing in. I cannot send messages anymore since that account has been blocked. Can I request a name change or should I make a new account. This is regarding account name NickAtMindTribe.

Thanks, Nick

Previous message: Hi Wifione,

Thanks for reviewing some of my submitted material and user name. It looks like I didn't follow the user name rules very well as I put my company name in my user name. Sorry! Can I have it changed or should I make a new account?

Thanks, Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.7.132 (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.7.132(talk)

accountcreator flag for Fridae'sDoom[edit]

Hi

I've re-granted FD's accountcreator flag, cos I've just unsuspended him. As I mentioned in the log, especially given the suspension reason kinda indicated that he might be back sooner or later.

[stwalkerster|talk] 00:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. No worries. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that Wifione, I just thought I'd put it in the corresponding section. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:04pm • 09:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Roony's article about me[edit]

I know John Roony from a couple of hospitals where I have worked. He is a nurse who does writing on the side. In September he wrote an article about me after consulting me about it. It was "W. C. Pollard." I told him someone had written one about five years ago and it was deleted. He showed me existing Wikipedia articles about persons who have made similar accomplishments, so I told him he could go ahead.

The article was subsequently deleted. I can't say I was happy about that, but John was very upset. He said you were very gracious with him and he appreciated that. However, he told me to look at WP:Notability, WP:BIO and WP:BLP and see whether I thought the deletion was justified. I told him the article probably met enough criteria to remain.

He wanted me to write you about this and I told him would think long and hard about that.

Obviously, I decided to write. Yes, I support John's position, but I will not lobby you to reinstate the article about me. It is awkward for me to even bring this up. I figure what has been decided is history now. I harbor no ill feelings about this. I have written about 75 Wikipedia articles and only one was ever deleted, so I know most articles remain.

All I ask is that for the future, it would be best if better consistency in article deletion/retention took place.

Thank you very much for your time. Bill PollardBill Pollard (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Mr. Pollard, I thank you for taking time out to write to me. First of all, allow me to mention that your contributions are extremely valued at Wikipedia. I understand the issue very well and do realise that it must have been a demotivating experience for Mr. John Rooney that I went ahead and deleted the article he wrote on you. Let me tell you what I'll do in the coming two days. I'll go ahead, re-view the deleted article, do my own secondary research from a neutral point of view and shall try to find out whether there's weight enough in the biography to be included on Wikipedia. If after my research, I do find that your biography can be included, I'll re-create it myself and leave a note on both your and Mr. Rooney's pages. In case I find the conclusion to the contrary, I shall still leave the respective notes expressing my regret. Irrespective of all that, if ever you might need assistance from me for any topic on Wikipedia, feel free to stop by on my talk page and leave a note. It has been my personal pleasure to converse with you. Kindest regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your review of article[edit]

Thank you for taking so much time in this matter. I will again let John know what is occurring with this. I think after a bit he will consider writing more articles, now that he knows he is taken seriously. Writers can be a fickle lot. I know personally it takes discipline to face criticisms and setbacks, as I have had my share of both.

Anyway, if you do not reinstate a new version of the article, that is okay, too. Whatever happens I will continue to contribute articles to Wikipedia. I have really enjoyed researching and posting articles. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question...[edit]

... was a quite hard nut to crack, Wifione :) Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk |contribs) 12:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November copy edit drive[edit]

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, Backlog elimination drives, November 2010, Newsletter 1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive!

The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.

Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.

Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Awards and barnstars

A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
— The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page· Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TTTSNB's rfa[edit]

Regarding your question, this is a random comment, just wanted to say that after a while you learn that there are some key "red flags" that in an IP edit are always vandalism. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I agree. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page· Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Blakeman[edit]

Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wifione/Archive_2010_(October)&oldid=1148860464"