User talk:Wifione/Archive 2012 (January)

WP:CRIME

You might be interested in discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the discussion. Thanks for the note Bbb. Correct decision taken on the talk page. I'll include the addition in BLP if possible. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 20:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, with your absence, I lost support for keeping out material from various articles related to Black, including the Black article itself. It's always a bit unclear to me why some editors, who are usually in support of protecting BLP from mere accusations, are noticeably silent in some contexts. Maybe I'm cynical, but I sometimes wonder, as in this case, if it's because the individual being protected is clearly an evil person. I fight against letting something like that influence me because I think the principle is the same. Good luck on getting the policy itself changed. If you think of it, let me know if you begin a discussion so I can contribute.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about people commenting or remaining silent. It's their free will. With respect to me, I should have commented -unfortunately was hanging off granite cliffs most of the time and couldn't edit during the hols. I'll see what can be done to the policy. Will keep you updated. Wifione ^Message 06:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granite cliffs?? I saw your edit at BLP and commented.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granite... Don't even ask. My whole body is paining right now due to my stupid belligerence and insistence on this hobby of climbing. And thanks for the views on the BLP stuff. Let's see how it works out. Wifione ^Message 05:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good form

Wifione ^Message 20:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered good form to categorize new categories such as, say Category:Wikipedia Good form. :-) All kidding aside though, I think it would make sense to delete this category until Wikipedia:Good form is closer to being operational. Cheers,Pichpich (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you around. Wifione ^Message 20:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Moves backlog

Hi, I had requested for a move of IIM Lucknow's Manfest → Manfest 20 days back. It is still in the back log. Can you please let me know if there are any technical problems associated with it. Thanks. Anbu121(talk me) 21:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Wifione ^Message

Arindam Chaudhuri

Hi, This is regarding the lawsuit-related content that you removed from this article. I also had a look at yourcomments on the talk page. I understand your point about not relying on primary sources for BLP articles. However, I have a couple of comments:

The passage that I added includes at least one source (theNew Yorker article) that is definitely not a primary source. I feel that this source alone justifies a mention of the lawsuit in the article.
Per WP:BLPPRIMARY "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Also, per WP:PSTS, we can use a primary source as long as we "do not base articles and material entirely on" it, and as long as we're using it only "to make straightforward, descriptive statements". Thus, in conjugation with the secondary source mentioned above, I feel the use of primary sources is justified.
Siddhartha Deb's book has actually been published now, although maybe not in India. Fortunately, I have access to an academic library and should soon be able to borrow a copy myself. At this point, I'm a bit confused on the status of biographical books, whether they should be considered as primary or secondary sources. I'd like to hear your view on this.

I feel that this passage is an important component of the article and I do not see why it cannot stay as long as it is properly sourced. Cheers, SPat^talk 22:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for the note. BLPPRIMARY advises that only reliable sources may be used. You may additionally reference primary sources to augment what reliable sources say. In other words, none of the material that is not there in the reliable source may be used. The New Yorker piece is a blog and a primary opinion piece by Stacey. The other sources are primary and have a clear conflict of interest. Add to that a biographical article which is purely a primary source. Plus, the main source apparently has been removed following a court order. And you are trying to use a combination of all that in a BLP. Also, the case wasn't done by Chaudhuri either but by some other entity. My suggestion would be to get extremely exceptional sources and then include the details in the IIPM page than on the BLP page. Wifione ^Message22:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ok so the New Yorker article doesn't qualify as secondary - I went back and found this:one (from Bar & Bench). It shouldn't be too difficult to get more news media sources that mention the lawsuit. I still do not understand your objection to using the primary sources, if you look at the paragraph, those two sources are only used to make factual statements about the lawsuit. As you said, the actual article has been removed by court order, but that's not a problem because I have access to the book from which the article was taken (by the way, the book is published by Faber & Faber, not avanity press).
Further, I feel that the proper place for this is the biographical article and not the IIPM article, because the entire story is centered on a biographical piece about Arindam Chaudhuri, not IIPM (although IIPM is one of the plaintiffs in the case).
I somehow missed the Bar&Bench article when I was first researching this, and I feel that I'll be able to rewrite it in a much better fashion using that article as a reference. Thanks, SPat ^talk 23:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spat, thanks for the reply. My view. The Bar and Bench article is totally unreliable a source. This is not a news magazine but a privately run legal information outfit. So please don't use it at all. The bar and bench site is owned bySab Media Software Services Private Ltd. The book's article about the BLP is a pure primary source because the author has been physically involved in the complete event. Additionally, as per PRIMARY, the fact that a case is already there against him makes anything he has written earlier too on the subject a primary source. Please do not add content that is not backed by exceptionally reliable sources. Use primary sources only to support statements that are quoted from reliable sources; and not vice versa. Don't take any chances with a BLP. Wifione ^Message 23:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wifione,

Bar & Bench describes itself as a news organization. Could you explain how it violates WP:RELIABLE, or in particular, why do you feel that it qualifies as questionable?
Even if it does, I found this on IBN Live, not as comprehensive, but definitely secondary.
I did not understand your statement: "the fact that a case is already there against him makes anything he has written earlier too on the subject a primary source." Could you explain that a bit? Also, are you saying that we can never cite biographical books as sources (for specific facts, say)?
I still feel that the sources, the way I'd used them, did satisfy WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY

Of course I would've preferred to cite articles from The Hindu and Times of India but for some reason, those haven't mentioned it at all. (I have my suspicions as to why, but an encyclopedia is not the place for that...) That's the reason why sources are not the ones we would expect for this article, however, I do believe they are within WP policy. Thanks, SPat ^talk 03:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again SPat for the detailed reply. I'll give the replies sequentially:

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." For a contentious news item, one would expect exceptional sources rather than niche websites like barandbench.com. They've not claimed themselves they are a news organisation but they claim they are "the new face of legal journalism." Which is interesting, as they also accept they are a site fully owned and run by a software services firm. None of the people involved in barandbench.com have any past experience in journalism or or news reporting. And the total number of people reportedly involved in barandbench.com is four; it's not clear whether they are full time or part time (as their careers section accepts they're open to part time reporting too). But the four people involved have listed their passion as seeing movies, dancing, travelling, breaking a Guinness world record etc. Anyway, I think rather than investing time in barandbench, we should discuss ibnlive and other reliable sources.
The ibnlive news item is a good, reliable news item you can use. It's the single reliable source you've placed till now. The suggestion would be to use it in the IIPM article; and that too perhaps a line or two maximum, given NPOV and UNDUE requirements as there are no multiple reliable sources reporting the news but only one that I have seen till now. The reason I mention this is that there's no particular encyclopedic value that I view in such a news item that does not have multiple reliable sources to support the contentions. Article comes out; an institution goes to court; article is removed. That's about how you should perhaps describe it in the IIPM article. In the BLP article, there's actually no sense in talking about the news item when neither was the BLP involved in filing the court case nor am I sure the case was about the BLP. It seems more and more that the case was about the institution and how an agent of the institution felt aggrieved.
Your third point. The latter point first. Biographical books which have been written by personally getting involved in the investigative reporting become primary by the definition of primary itself. Such books have to qualify on BLPPRIMARY. Now to the other point. When there's a court case against a person about an article he or she has written, then the fact is that not only does the author become an involved party to the whole incident by default (therefore a primary source himself), but any article that that the author may have written about the other parties involved in the court case before, during or after the court case become primary source material and quite questionable due to the fact that the parties are under litigation about claims and counter claims and any previous, current or future claim may be possibly made to promote a particular point of view with a conflict of interest. An example is the News of the World saga, where, an apparently reliable source became a primary (and unreliable source) for any report on the UK government the moment the UK government started legal action against them. One could always argue that if the NOTW has written an article on the UK government much before the saga, it may be considered primary yet reliable. Perhaps. But in this case you mention, the author himself is contentious and embroiled in a legal controversy - with a court in fact ordering the removal of his article. So I'll be loathe to accept it in a BLP and open the doors to any legal issues. Read thefootnote in NOR that lists out examples of what are primary sources and why parties involved in court cases automatically are primary sources for information about each other.
When all reliable sources and news organisations fail to report an issue, then one really has to ask oneself whether one believes in conspiracy theories of a mass control of media by one institution or whether the leading news magazines did not deem the news item reliable or newsworthy enough to be reported. That's the wonder of V. In case a news item should be placed in any article, one should have found multiple "reliable" secondary sources for the same to prove its encyclopedic nature. If after all the search, one can come up only with blogs, opinions, lounge pieces, personal columns, in effect primary sources - and at the best one reliable source - then there's a strong case for not sensationalizing an item that does not even seem encyclopedic.

Please do write back for more clarification or support. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 06:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wifione,
Thanks so much for patiently addressing all my comments, and sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. As I understand it now, the relevant guideline here seems to be WP:UNDUE, and the content may not satisfy the requirement of "majority view". Also, I now understand your point about involved parties in a court case becoming primary sources on topics related to the case, per the NOTW example. I'm still not convinced that Bar & Bench is not a reliable source - I'll try looking into that a bit more, but I see your rationale for not using it, particularly in case of a BLP.
A somewhat speculative question: suppose that if and when the court case is settled, and *if* there is sufficient media coverage of that, would the lawsuit itself be notable enough for an article (that would not be subject to BLP restrictions)?
Anyways, thanks again for helping me out,SPat ^talk 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be notable. You'll just have to take care about two/three small issues. One - the sources should beexceptionally reliable. Two, back no challenged claims with primary/questionable sources/those with conflicts of interest. Three, the sources in themselves should have delved on Arindam Chaudhuri directly. Thanks and write back for further support. Wifione ^Message 05:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks (2nd nomination)

Would you consider re looking at your close of this AfD, I would respectfully suggest that given the number of WP:SPA's, likely socking, and the issue of WP:NOTNEWS not convincingly addressed that it was more "No Consensus" than "Keep" and that would be more in keeping with your comment of "With no prejudice to an early repeat AfD". Mt king ^(edits) 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mtking, thanks for the note and good to see you around. I see the AfD closing as a clear keep. Yes, there were many new ips/editors who commented in the AfD. In my experience of closing AfDs, I've noticed that that is quite possible and acceptable with respect to articles like the one this AfD was handling. Additionally, checkusers were closely involved in validating some of the commenting editors' contributions. Leave one editor, I have had to consider all other comments in the AfD and it is a clear keep for now. I do realize that this may disappoint you. But I'm sure a month from now if you were to re-nominate the page, there might be a different response. Please do tell me if there's any other assistance you may require. Best, Wifione ^Message 05:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I will wait (probably longer than a month) to see if new sources appear and then may swing by here again and see what you think then. Mt king ^(edits)05:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Please do drop in whenever you need assistance. Wishes. Wifione ^Message 05:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chunk! No, Captain Chunk

I think you may have forgotten to delete the article discussed at this AfD. —SW— ^squeal 05:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty it's good to see you around. I did delete the article while closing the AfD. The log also shows the same details. What made you believe otherwise? Perhaps there's some linked article? Best. Wifione ^Message 05:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, you're right. The one I found was Chunk! No, Captain Chunk! (didn't notice the extra exclamation point at the end). I'll leave it up to you to decide if this one should also be deleted. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 06:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. Deleted. Wifione ^Message 07:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

seahorse

anyone got a picture of a real sea horse — Precedingunsigned comment added by 173.252.30.120 (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, this is a copy of the message I've left on your talk page. Click on this link and it shows you a lot of images, which include some of real sea horses. Keep scrolling through the pages and there are some lovely images. Write back to me for any further assistance. Wifione ^Message 04:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

Possible RFA

Hello Wifione will you please review my editing history and give me some insight on a possible RFA but please repond to me only to email on this issue please. tucsondavid@live.com TucsonDavidU.S.A. 19:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) TucsonDavid, it is basically impossible to successfully pass an RFA with less than 5000 edits, and most people look for more than 10K. A group has been looking at RFA results, and this is a quote from their research: "Having analysed all adminship promotions since 1 Jan 2009, we have only one promoted administrator who had less than 3000 edits (and he requested a temporary adminship because of that shortfall, although he had over 1 million edits across all wikis)." At less than 1500 edits, your RFA would not pass, and likely be closed within a day or so. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson, I have to agree completely with Qwyrxian here. If you wish, I can mentor you on the path to assisting in maintaining on Wikipedia. Rather than adminship, I personally believe you should be looking at how you can contribute to bettering Wikipedia's various editing and maintenance areas. Adminship would come on its own... I'm there. Write back on how I can assist you. Wifione ^Message 05:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During the blackout...

During the blackout, I was glancing over the recent changes portal and I noticed that four pages were speedily deleted by you under A7. Was I incorrect in my assumption that:

"Internal Wikipedia processes that are dependent upon time-specific discussions, such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion should be considered suspended during the course of the blackout, and their scheduled duration extended 24 hours." (source: WP:BLACKOUT)

I know that a speedy deletion isn't quite an AfD, but it only seems logical that something of that nature should have been delayed as well, to allow for proper community input. I never perused the articles in question, and I certainly claim ignorance as to the circumstances surrounding the deletion, but this has been bugging me ever since I saw the articles were deleted, and I'd be grateful if you were to put my mind at ease. Buffalutheran (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, admins who dared to use their tools during the blackout now can display this.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clever to do it with Special:Nuke, I must admit. 28bytes (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buffaluheran, my apologies if the issue inconvenienced you. One revdel I undertook was utterly gross against some top politician in India. Another was a copy paste job from a Stanford site. Even though speedy isn't a time specific process as a matter of strict speaking, you're right that I could have waited before deleting the other pages. Next time, will put my hands away from the comp.

Jasper, thanks for that template :)

28bytes, there were two more ways to delete pages. Thank god I didn't use them. Wifione ^Message 05:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks to Calabe1992 (talk · contribs) for the template!Jasper Deng (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

X-Smiles

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-Smiles. But why no consensus? No arguments in favor of keeping were present. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmitrij, good to see you here. Assume there had been no keep !votes at all. How would you think I would have closed this AfD then as per our deletion policy? It's a quick test. Come on, don't let me down :) Wifione ^Message 12:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would relist it then. Still, I don't care it much anyway. P.S.: Thanks for quick reply! Very precious thing on Wikipedia.— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh my thanks. Take care and be around. Ask for any assistance you wish. Best. Wifione ^Message 12:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper and magazine blogs

Hi. I implemented the change we discussed.[1] It also involved a change that you may not have noticed in the talk page version and implemented version, which was leaving out the recently added footnote<ref name="EXCEPTIONAL"/>. I should have mentioned this during our discussion and you should feel free to revert that part if desired. It seems that this footnote applies to all material, not just blogs. So if it were to be put there, it seems that it should be put for each other type of source too, which doesn't seem appropriate. Perhaps the footnote's remaining appearance in one other place should be deleted also? It seems that the section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources is sufficiently appropriate by itself, without adding footnotes referring to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob. It'll be great if you can place back the footnote and don't remove the other footnotes. The reason is that many editors (and I mean many) assume that the moment a newspaper blog becomes acceptable, it qualifies on the exceptional sources standard. The footnote is placed there especially to point out that irrespective of a newspaper blog being acceptable, or a primary source coming into use, they don't qualify on the exceptional sources front. And yes, you've done a great job with the wordings. Thanks, best. Wifione ^Message 02:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the wording for the sentence that corresponds to the footnote has changed to make blogs more of a case of borderline reliable sources, and certainly not a case of exceptional or high-quality sources.

"These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the newspaper's normal fact checking process.^[3]"

3. Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources

If you still want it restored, I can do that since we hadn't discussed its removal before it was removed. Let me know. Regards,--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do please restore the footnote whenever you can as I have seen many an editor assuming the wordings wrongly. Thanks so much for keeping this in your view as I might have missed it in case you hadn't mentioned it. Best always. Wifione ^Message 04:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K. P. Yohannan

I was very disappointed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. P. Yohannan - I think it should have been relisted. Although one user obviously disagreed with me about the independence of sources, I presented a very strong claim to notability - that two of the people who voted delete may not have been aware of, and that may have changed their vote. One user said that there was a "lack of notable coverage that is at least presented on the page." If I have improved the article after that vote, surely that should be taken into account. Please re-open and re-list the debate. St Anselm(talk) 07:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it all happens in one day :) I'm relisting the AfD for further discussion. Best. Wifione ^Message 14:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. St Anselm (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auto & Travel

Hi Wifione. You just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auto & Travel as "no consensus". Two editors -- giving policy-based reasons -- !voted delete.

The lone editor who disagreed based his keep !vote on a single ref. A single ref does not meet our notability standard. WP:GNG requires that there be

significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ... The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources.Multiple sources are generally expected.

The editor !voting keep referred to only one source. Not the multiple sources that are generally expected.

Plus, the lone source wasn't even independent. The magazine in question isa member of the "source". I would hope that you would consider taking another look, as I don't believe that the keep !vote should have been given weight, given that it was against policy.

Best, and thank you for your contributions.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I think that the close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process-Space Festival should -- if it is closed at all (I would have left it open for more input, actually) -- be delete. Two !voters !voted delete, and one a weak keep, which to my mind is not the sort of balance that leads to a no-consensus close. Perhaps leaving it open longer, though, would lead to more clarity. As it is, if I were to weigh it, it would be two solid deletes against one weak keep, which is to my mind a delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche. I respect your feedback. Should you wish these AfDs to be relisted, do tell. In fact, let me relist them for a week more. I'll keep a watch on both of them. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 14:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind consideration. And again -- I appreciate your contributions. Best.--Epeefleche(talk) 16:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Wifione ^Message16:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled AfD

At this AfD, you deleted the main article but not the other two articles that were bundled with it. Take a look at 2011 NECC ITF International Women's Tournament – Singles and2011 NECC ITF International Women's Tournament – Doubles when you get a chance. Thanks! —SW— ^chatter 14:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with me? Thanks so much for keeping a watch on that. Wifione ^Message 14:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, happens to the best of us. I only see these issues because I have a bot that watches out for things like this and posts them to User:Snotbot/AfD report. —SW— ^talk15:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Say my thanks to the bot too please :D And keep knocking around here. Good to see you. Best. Wifione ^Message 15:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silvana Gallardo

I actually do not understand how wikipedia works, but what exactly is the idea to repeated undo my edits regarding the passing of Silvana Gallardo, her untimely passing being nearly a full month ago, and readily verifiable? It is as if you wish to preserve the inaccuracy of the page. 71.28.193.209 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the inconvenience. But can you please show me a verifiable link that shows what you claim? Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 04:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/01/05/2016269/silvana-gallardo-actress-who-had.html 71.28.193.209 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Many thanks for your nomination, much appreciated! Giant Snowman 15:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck. Wifione ^Message 15:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Request For Rollback

My edit was part of the rule on wikipedia about not writing about yourself. And They Had A Shared Account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdude 132 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will, thanks for your message. Unfortunately, what you reverted was not close to vandalism. It was a COI edit. Please read up our policy on vandalism, especially the sub-sections on what is and what is not vandalism. Your request for rollback has been rejected by another administrator, due to your lack of understanding of vandalism. Please revert a few clear vandal edits and reapply after a few weeks. You could write directly to me too. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 13:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]