User talk:Wifione/Archive 2012 (February)

Talkback

Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at B.wilson's talk page.
Message added 00:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at Muhandes's talk page.
Message added 06:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Muhandes (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erh?

Why exactly did you protect Solar cycle, since you've blocked both WMC and the IP? We now are in the position where nothingcan be done to correct the situation. Which is very simple really. Not even inserting the citation that the IP was requesting. And, yes i know WP:WRONGVERSION, but protecting pages shouldn't be done unless there is a strong chance of an edit-war erupting again - and quite frankly i can't see how that would be the case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Kim, thanks for the note. I understand. I'll wait for a day to see how discussions are proceeding on the talk page before considering unprotecting the page. I'll surely have no issues in an extremely early unprotect once I see discussions starting off. Thanks. Wifione Message 22:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a very simple solution to the editwar. The IP was disruption to make a point, he wanted an updated citation for one word, and reverted back to a version that is incorrect - he admits this in both edit-comments and on the talk page. Since the editor is now blocked, i was going to insert the (quite frankly silly citation, since there is already a citation for the rest).. I can of course ask for a protected edit via talk page, but i can't see why this is needed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already did - i'm awaiting if anyone objects to the insertion of the citation, to see if i can use the protected edit template.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking for "very"

Removing the leech "very" was trivial Strunk-and-Whitening rather than "edit warring". Your tone was obnoxious, also.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • My apologies if it sounded obnoxious. Wasn't intended Kiefer. WifioneMessage 23:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I trust that you apologize for the tone, to WMC. Would you please review the "very" edit, also. It doesn't strike me as edit warring....
    I will very readily grant that WMC's 3 reverts are very much at the very border of the 3RR "line in the sand". However, removing "very" is very often a very good idea....
    This is not a good time, in terms of enjoying my benevolence, to be blocking article writers. Be well!
     Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Let me leave an added note on WMC's talk page. At the same time, I'll be more than in agreement to remove the block once WMC recognizes the issue. Thanks. Wifione Message 23:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed my snide remark and struck through another. Sorry, and thanks for overlooking it/them.
    WMC understands the issue, of course. Forcing him to apologize when he has not technically violated the 3RR rule that you cited in your block---this is not a prudent demand, although I sympathize with your wish to avoid future incidents.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually - and I don't know if you'll believe me (and please don't take this as a sarcastic comment) - it's always very nice to see you around. I appreciate your involvement and presence around the project. If there's anything you might wish assistance in from me, do feel free to ask. Kind regards. Wifione Message 23:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgiving my wrath makes you a rare and generous Wikipedian. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted?

Hi, you recently deleted a page I've been contributing to (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Davies_%28entrepreneur,_racing_driver%29). I made some initial changes that were suggested, however the page is now gone. Can ypu please advise to how I can get the page approved. Thanks. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Mattb84 (talk •contribs) 13:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) User posted a question to the talk page of the deleted article, which I nominated for CSD, I gave a lengthy reply on his talk page, pretty much echoing what you said above, but I predict this gets recreated again. I suppose its possible he will pass GNG or sports notability, but we shall see. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Georgia

Hi, see history of this template and contribution of this user, please. Thanks. Best regards--MIKHEIL(talk) 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

1) I am really worried that you, an administrator, still get confused between WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:NPOV, the core content policies of Wikipedia. You accused me for WP:COI and put up a COI tag on the article saying that the article has NPOV issues and that you wanted to attract NPOV experts' attention. All the concerns that you have listedhere are issues regarding reliable sources, but you have named the section's heading as NPOV issues (FYI, I have changed the section heading). And you did all these without even reading the article fully. 2) You have described me as "institute's student editor" here. I am not editing the IIM Lucknow article on the behalf of my institute. The institute has not asked me to do so and the institute does not even know that I am editing the article (only some of my close friends know about it). I am doing it out of my own interest. I must not be treated differently just because I study there. First of all, I am a Wikipedian. As of now, I have contributed 1714 edits in Wikipedia in 667 unique articles within 2 months of joining Wikipedia (Out of the 1714 edits, only 131 edits are on the IIM Lucknow article). I am a regular RC patroller (India articles) and I have AWB rights too. Please avoid judging a person or article without thorough examination (You must be knowing more than me about the tools available in Wikipedia to examine a person or article). 3) I really had an unpleasant experience in dealing this issue with you for the above mentioned reasons. I controlled my nerves every time I read your reply and I took extreme caution to ensure that the stress does not reflect in my interaction with you. I deliberately used polite and kind language to calm you down. I apologize if I had caused you any inconvenience or unpleasant experience during these interactions (including this feedback). --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Anbu. Firstly, thanks for your message. Don't take what I write here as being against you. And do remember, my intention is to assist you rather than antagonize you. Now to the issue. As a student of IIM Lucknow, you are editing the IIM Lucknow article. That does make you an IIM student editing the article. I've assumed quite some good faith and will continue to do so because of your self-revelation, which is quite honest and I have to commend you for that. Even before your reply here, I hope you noticed that I removed the COI tag on the institutional article because you said it was embarrassing you personally as your friends were viewing the article. In the edit summary, I had to leave a message justifying the removal, where I have mentioned you are an IIM student editing the article. If the words hurt you, I apologize to you. Secondly, at no moment are you being treated differently for being a student of IIM Lucknow - you are being encouraged to come up to the same standards that we demand of other editors. NPOV issues can exist because of synthesis being committed through reliable sources, which exactly is my point. And as per policy, you should notchange another editor's comments - therefore, technically I should be changing the heading of that section back on the talk page. But I won't for your benefit. Look, I really want you to feel at ease editing the article and don't want you to feel anything to the contrary. Please do ask me for any assistance whenever you want - and I really mean it. Wifione Message 05:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 12:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vozce

Hi, see contribution of this user, please. This is typical vandal. He Continues vandalism in the articles about history of Georgia, he removes templates, any caution is unsuccessful. Think that only way out of a situation is bloking this user. Thanks. --MIKHEIL (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mikheil. The only personal attack that the editor committed was four days back. Since then, there are only edit disputes going on and no vandalism. Read our policy notes on vandalism to understand what is and what is not vandalism. This is not to say that the editor cannot be warned, but blocking the editor right now is not done. Write to me if the issue escalates or for any other assistance. Wifione Message 05:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amity

Please refer to UGC site, They have mentioned the name of universities those were approved by them. Amity university is listed in one of them under the section Uttar pradesh and all the sentences that you have written in page are weaknesses that UGC commitee pointed out and amity is working on it. Please don'y show bad side of my university. And don't play with my juniors and fellow mates future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phalgunit (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found this source, which confirms that Amity University Rajasthan is being recommended for recognition. It doesn't talk about any other location. I'll include this link in the article with relevant information. If you have a source that confirms a similar recognition for Amity University in Haryana, please do mention here or add in the article. Do also point out if I'm missing something as I've not been able to find any link confirming recognition for Amity University Haryana. Thanks. Wifione Message 14:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Many thanks for your kind words! Regards, GiantSnowman 16:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and pleased to see they led to a successful conclusion DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, not without your co-nom. The amount of respect you have amongst the community here was quite clear in some of the comments. Complementing that, GiantSnowman on his own too could have made it, given the amount of work he had put in in the last year. So I lay very feeble claim out here to the RFA's success :) But your messages are always highly appreciated by me. Thanks for the words. Wifione Message 19:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhardwaj

would you also revert the garbage the ips have added.everything is unsourced.Pernoctator (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC) thank you.Pernoctator (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done.Pernoctator (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I'm watching it and will protect it if any similar stuff occurs. Thanks again. Wifione Message 14:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, should we just redirect the earlier article to this one? Wifione Message 14:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think that would be needed.one article is about a person called bharadwaja (an ancient hindu sage who appears in all epics).the other is about a surname which is used by people who claim to be his descendants.i think we should let them be separate atleast for the moment.Pernoctator (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thanks for the reply. See you around. Wifione Message 14:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TEA

Wikipedians also recommendbiscuits with tea.

Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) has given youa cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 10:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

More tea and biscuits

Hi, sending you more tea and biscuits, they'll be needed if you are waiting for a conclusion to that discussion at WT:V. I am having tea and bikkies right now. 2014 sounds about right, and a sense of humour is de riguer. cheers NewbyG ( talk) 18:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Good form/Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Good form/Noticeboard, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Good form/Noticeboard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Good form/Noticeboard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:Good form/Noticeboard

Wikipedia talk:Good form/Noticeboard, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Good form/Noticeboard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:Good form/Noticeboard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about the lack of experince thing AwesomeSponge (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry. There are editors who will readily guide you on any issue. I've given some guidelines. Follow them for a fortnight and then come back once you can show you've successfully identified and reverted vandalism. You could in the meanwhile useTwinkle to revert vandalism. Rollback is a very strong feature and therefore we're careful handing it out. Tools like Huggle are especially powerful once you've gotten the rollback right. So do come back and reapply in due course. Sorry to disappoint you. Kind regards. Wifione Message14:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of one of your edits at Wikipedia:Verifiability

Hi, I just started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Exceptional_edit which involves one of your edits. If you could chime-in, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks for the note. Not too worried about any radical changes you all would take as the discussions seem quite sensibly going on. So will jump in only if it veers off. Kind regards. Wifione Message 02:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


My RfA

Could you expand a bit on your IAR comment? I'm thinking I may not have explained myself very well. As for the BLP comment, I take your point, and I suspect I may have come across as too negative about my knowledge of BLP due to the precise question asked. Yes I wouldn't feel comfortable making final decisions at AfD or similar in a situation such as that described, but I think I have enough knowledge to spot the obvious and it only be the grey areas were I wouldn't want to tread. I'm going to go and add to my BLP answers. Dpmuk (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, my apologies for the oppose. Here's your reply: The community as a whole, however, seems to take a slightly laxer view and many editors (both admins and others) believe that the right result is the most important thing and so will perform actions when they feel the right result is obvious, often citing WP:IAR. I don't believe in this, as I allude to above.

What do you exactly mean by "I don't believe in this, as I allude to above." Perhaps I'm misreading this statement... Do clarify here or on the RfA, wherever you may feel comfortable. Also, I'm logging off right now, so may not be able to reply for a couple of hours. Thanks. Wifione Message 04:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded my answer. With hindsight that statement could very easily be misinterpreted if you weren't aware of everything that went on in the "Slovaks in Hungary" discussion. Regardless of what your final !vote is, thanks for pointing it out. Dpmuk(talk) 05:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also suspect I saw the version before your clarifying edit - that made it obvious what the issue was! And no need to apologise for the oppose. I always value honest, productive, feedback, even if it is negative. You can't improve unless you know where you're going wrong. Dpmuk (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Kim Ark FAC

Hi. An article I've worked on heavily — United States v. Wong Kim Ark — is being considered for possible promotion to Featured Article. The discussion has kind-of stagnated and would benefit from additional input. If you have the time and interest, I'd be grateful if you could take a good look at the article, then go to its FAC page and give whatever feedback you believe is appropriate. Thanks. —Richwales 05:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello Wifione, I have replied to the email you sent me a few hours ago. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Figureskating RFA

I replied (partially) to your oppose vote, as the first revert she did is vandalism. Thanks Secret account 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Deletion of Masonic Lodges of North Carolina... I just don't care anymore.

I take serious issue with the fact that the article was blanked for copyright problems with no warning. This episode makes me seriously reconsider my continued participation in Wikipedia. That list was not a "copy and paste." The list I had was a flat, non-editable pdf. I had to import the data into Excel, then parse out all the columns. I then spent DAYS going through and making changes such as county names that had changed over time or became part of Tennessee. I spent hours adding code where if in the comments section it said something like "Merged with Lodge #100 on xxx date" the viewer could click that and be taken to the line for lodge #100. Then, someone like Tyrenon comes along who as you can see spends 2/3rds of his time deleting other people's work and waves his magic deletion wand and all I can do is throw my hands up in despair.

I have been working hard on a History of Freemasonry in North Carolina article. I think now I will just send it to the Grand Lodge and have them publish it in their magazine and/or website that way someone can’t come along one day and say “Not Notable! Delete! Delete! Delete!” Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The "sweat of the brow" of retyping and re-formatting something does not alleviate any copyright concern over the raw content, although I would perhaps argue that a factual list is in fact not copyrightable to begin with. Regarding being published by the grand lodge, that would probably not qualify as a WP:RELIABLESOURCE, so would not in fact help you with notability (it would be self published, or a primary source). Your lengthy comment in the AFD outlines pretty well the reasons for deletion (with the exception of copyright, which I would contest), and I am not sure it would be possible to overcome this without showing that collectively the list is notable (certainly there could be books published on lodges in the state), or that some subset of individual lodges are individually notable, and therefore a list to organize them is justified. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eric, I'm sorry for how this came out on you. If there's anything I can do to assist you in this regard (or in any other context), please do just ask. Didn't intend it to be seen as being personally against you. Kind regards. Wifione Message 03:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't take it as a personal attack, I take it as yet another indication of the CANCER to the Wikipedia Community that I call the "Notability Mafia" which is what got the article nominated for deletion in the first place. Thanks. Eric Cable  |  Talk  04:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at Talk:Indian Institute of Management Lucknow.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Anbu121 (talk me) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Wifione, My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. I'm honored by the offer. I see that you've already gotten a considerable set of administrators lined up; and frankly, all are better experienced than I am and would offer a richer view to your students. If you fall short of interviews, just leave a note here and I'll do a face to face interview if you're in my town, or will talk on phone or whatever. Thanks again for the offer. Kind regards. Wifione Message 03:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi, thank you for making me think for my RfA. You mentioned that you were waiting for me to reply on notability, and I have now done so. Kind regards – Fayenatic (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! If I missed anything that you were looking for, or went in an odd direction with my answers, please feel free to discuss it further. – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you did ask... I was going to warn User talk:RedTornado13 but then saw he'd had a level 4 warning last week, so now he's out for a day. It's a VOA so he'd better not do it again. – Fayenatic L(talk) 17:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at Fayenatic london's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Loveinheart123

Hi, this fellow is now using a sockpuppet. See [1]. Please semi-protect the article, block the IP, and extend the block of the user. Thanks. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 18:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound rude, but please hurry up! Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 09:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joyson. I'm so sorry I couldn't see your message on time as I had logged off after blocking the editor the last time. I see the article has already been protected. Please do contact me for any further assistance. Kind regards. Wifione Message 18:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue! However, if you would extend his block for repeatedly evading the block here and at the Balmiki article, that would be much appreciated. Regards, Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 18:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extended to a week. Do tell me whenever you might need assistance. Thanks. Wifione Message 18:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE March copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa,Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

WP:BLPCRIME

Hi, Wifi, please comment atBLPN. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment at WP:BLPN, please see:

Disappearance of Genette Tate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ianmacm Talk page

My Talk page]

I will revert one more time. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your note at WP:BLPN. The disappearance of Genette Tate article is undergoing similar repeated editing to include what I think is a BLPCRIME violation. If you have a moment and are so inclined, could you please have a word with the editors involved? JFHJr (㊟) 12:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the other editor's viewpoint at BLPN and left a reply there. Please inform me if your discussions proceed to a consensus conclusion. Thanks. Wifione Message15:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Autopatrolled

Hi, thanks for your answer about Autopatrolled. I've left a reply for you with some comments to clarify the situation. Cheers, Azylber (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Check your email again from Whenaxis (or Bradley), title "Thinking about adminship". Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at Liam987's talk page.
Message added 12:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Liam987 12:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIM Lucknow

If you find free time, lets continue the review on the article's talk page. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. In some hours. Best. Wifione Message 04:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, friend

My go-to guy among Administrators, Kudpung, seems to have departed the project, at least for a time. I'm bummed. Anyway, I was wondering if you might put on his large hat for a moment and please investigate and approve Autopatrolled status for User:Billmckern . Dude has something over 100 starts and I just found some really good work of his in the New Pages queue. He can be safely assigned the advanced creation right, in my estimation. NPP workers have enough to do already without worrying about his stuff, god knows... Thanks for this! —Tim Davenport //// Carrite (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great to see you here always Carrite. With respect to your reference, I've approved the right for the editor. Please write back to me for any future assistance. Thanks and keep dropping by :) Wifione Message 04:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Account creator

The list shows what users are capable of adding the account creator group. Prodego talk 04:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Prodego. In the same way as bureaucrats can add the admin flag but the same can be decided by the community here, Interface Administrators should be able to decide on the account creator flag. Irrespective of their decision, the flag will still be added by Wikipedia administrators only. Please see discussion [2]. Do write back if you have suggestions. Kind regards. Wifione Message 05:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tate and Fabb articles

These have had a top to bottom rewrite. There is a sandbox version of the Genette Tate article here and the April Fabb article here. The comments at Talk:Disappearance_of_Genette_Tate#Links_to_other_cases andUser_talk:Ianmacm#New_version_of_Fabb_article suggest that everyone is happy with these versions. Please could you consider lifting the protection so that the sandbox versions can go live, thanks, --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you unprotect the Fabb article as well, thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. I'd already unprotected the article before your message. Do come back if there's any technical error in this or if I've overlooked something. Kind regards. Wifione Message 02:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, there seems to have been a glitch in my watchlist, thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wifione. You have new messages at WP:VPP.
Message added 19:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks

I still don't feel that this "event" meets the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, I had tagged the article following a talk page discussion, however one editor feels it should be removed, I think it should stay to give other editors chance to source more recent content about the fires, as the closing admin can you please review it. As I see it I have only one option and that is to start another AfD, I was hoping to give the event three months before doing that, but without the tag there is little chance others will add sourcing.Mtking (edits) 01:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012