User talk:Wifione/Archive 2014 (Aug-Oct)

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

Editor review[edit]

Hi Wifione, I noticed that you returned to your Editor Review a few days ago, after a long absence, and have today closed it. Might I suggest that you leave User:DGG, User:MastCell, User:Sphilbrick, User:Leaky caldron, User:WJBscribe, User:Ben Moore, User:SB Johnny and User:Guy Macon a brief courtesy note advising them of the closure, and thanking them for their participation? I am sure they would appreciate it, as things were kind of left hanging a few months ago when you departed. Best, Andreas JN466 16:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

afshin (singer) article[edit]

hello Can you help me, To defend my article ? Saeed.hakimii (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me go through it and then comment. Thanks. Wifione Message 10:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saeed, your article seems to be saved already going by the comments on its deletion discussion. Take care and best. Wifione Message 11:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Wifione. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC). 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.

Nikkimaria (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton. Wifione Message 09:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam[edit]

Unfortunately, I think the Tamil editor did not learn much during their blocking period. I susspect another edit war is in the offing. Not by me, I'm staying out this time. But just thought I'd let you know. Cheers. :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 00:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the note. I think the editors are somehow managing to keep their cool. Will keep a watch. Wifione Message 16:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Revert last undo" on "Pogrom" article[edit]

I'm a bit unclear on what exactly you're prescribing as per [1]. I understand 3RR, and I realize that I did in fact make a 4th revert in the past 24 hours. If you look at the history, you'll notice that my initial revert was to re-integrate sourced content that had been discussed and revised on the talk page since 2008. Altenmann was the first in this latest round of attempts to remove this relevant and properly-sourced content, and did so without giving any reason whatsoever. Altenmann (who, I believe, has been warned before on Arab-Israeli conflict issues) was reverted by Oncenawhile. Monochrome Monitor, who definitely has been warned on articles relating to this topic, then removed the content again, and I reinstated it (my first "undo"). User:Galassi then appeared to yet again delete the content, this time for "no consensus for inclusion" which you'll note, as per WP:DRNC, is not close to being a valid reason for removing properly-cited content. Galassi has tried to do this several times before (see Talk:Pogrom#POV_pushing) and generally refuses to discuss the issue rationally. At the time, Galassi was aided by User:Plot_spoiler, who has been topic banned from editing Arab-Israeli conflict articles in the past. I reinstated the content yet again, and Galassi reverted it yet again, for "no consensus for inclusion". Altenmann then removed it again, and I reinstated it, asking him to take the issue to the talk page. He eventually agreed, but reported me for 3RR violation before even giving me a chance to contribute to (yet another) rehashing of the same, years-old spurious objections and arguments to the Olmert content being in the article. You'll note, from my contrib history, that whenever I make any major edit, I discuss it on the corresponding talk page, even if no one prompted me to defend my edit. He reverted again, and this time an anonymous IP reinstated the content, in a more appropriate section of the article,

I know what 3RR is, and I'm aware I violated it in this instance, but I did so in order to keep, in the article, properly-sourced and relevant content upon which I and other editors worked with each other for a long period to establish consensus vis à vis an agreeable version of the content (in short, the actual quotes were snipped and embedded in the references rather than written out in the article itself). What is an editor supposed to do when multiple people remove solid content for POV reasons that have nothing to do with the content or the article? When this happens 3, 4, or 5 times in a day? I'm not allowed to attempt to stop POV-pushing and vandalism because I'm only one person and can only revert vandalism 3 times in a day?

You write that you'll block me if I don't revert my last undo. Literally, this would mean moving the content back a paragraph, as the last edit I made was just about arrangement. Or am I to understand that you want me to remove the sourced content, effecting the POV bias of the aforementioned users who want the content gone because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, returning the article to state immediately after it was first vandalized, making that vandalism a fait accompli?

Thanks for your response, Direct Action

  • The ever-vigilant User:Galassi has reverted my last content reinstatement via Twinkle. I'm assuming that means it's not longer incumbent upon me to revert. That said, I would still appreciate a response to my questions if you can manage the time. Direct action (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded on the edit warring noticeboard. Thanks for your note here. Regards. Wifione Message 15:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Report User:Iñaki LL[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that Inaki LL is the one who is edit warring, not me. The evidence is on the page itself. Inaki LL deleted my contribution to the status box because he claims France did not exist until the 11th century. Such a claim is ridiculous and contradicts information already used on Wikipedia. Furthermore, unlike Iñaki LL, I presented my case on the articles talk page. Another obvious sign of guilt is the fact that he reported me only after I threatened to report him. This was going to be first time I'd ever had to report someone, so I was still trying to work out how to do it when he beat me to the punch, reporting me before I could report him. I've been a user for a number of years, but there are some things I'm still don't know how to do, a fact which this user clearly took advantage of. I can't help but feel bullied by this more experienced user, and I want my side of the story known. I've dedicated myself to ensuring factual accuracy on this website, and I always do my research before I add anything. If I don't use a source, it usually means that the info was added based on sources already on Wikipedia or in another article on this page. I did extensive research before I added the info to the status box of the Duchy of Aquitaine, including researching each individual Duke and Duchess who ruled the duchy. It took me days before I was finally able to add that info, and then Iñaki LL goes and deletes it based on his ridiculous claim that France didn't exist until the 11th century, something that anyone familiar with the history of France can tell you is not true. When it became apparent that this user would not stop reverting, I presented my case on the articles talk page. The other user did not respond, and when he reverted my edit again, I warned him in the summary of my subsequent edit that I was going to report him. That was when he reported me before I could even act upon my threat. My apologies for rambling on for so long. I just wanted you to know the full story. The evidence is there on the articles talk page and in the edit history. The user may have added something to the talk page since then, but if so, he didn't add it until after he reported me. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Toolen (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Toolen for the note here. It doesn't matter how well you researched some information. Unless you add verifiable and reliable sources that confirm your statement, you are going the wrong way by adding unreferenced information. User:Iñaki LL has asked for verifiability of your claim; and you don't seem to be providing that within the article. I'm going to advise you to revert your addition to the article at the soonest and and the same back only after you've discussed your reliable source on the talk page of the article. Else, if you continue adding unsourced claims, you will end up getting blocked very soon. Please read up WP:Original research, WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV and WP:Citing sources properly before adding back contentious material that is being challenged. Hope this clarifies your issue. Wifione Message 01:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wifione, I left an additional comment in dispute resolution. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Warned. Wifione Message 17:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP has returned[edit]

I was told to report back to you if the IP I reported for edit warring on the List of SpongeBob SquarePants merchandise page came back. He's come back, so can you semi-protect the page and block the IP? ~jcm 19:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi jcm. Sorry for asking you this right now instead of at the outset itself. What is wrong with the edit that the IP is doing? I notice the IP is attempting to add a merchandise named "Spongebob's Robotic Adventures". Why do you think that should not be added? Wifione Message 10:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in the edit warring report, it's because Spongebob's Robotic Adventure is a fan game and not an official one. If you google the title, you'll only see a couple of youtube videos and a page on the SpongeBob Fanon Wiki. Due to Wikipedia's rules again self-promotion, I don't think we should allow that. ~jcm 03:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I understand. Would you therefore take up the discussion on the talk page of the article? If the IP doesn't respond there and continues to revert. I'll block the IP after one final warning. Wifione Message 17:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

GOCE July drive and August blitz[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone!

Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here!

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lukejordan02's block[edit]

I disagree with your block of Luke, as you have to revert more than three times to break the three revert rule and he had reverted three times while Andrze reverted four. Is there an edit war going on? I definitely think so, but I think it's inappropriate to label his block incorrectly. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're going by previous reverts from prior days to show a pattern, which I could understand - however, Andrze should receive just as long of a block, considering this would be his third 3RR block. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dusti. In the past 24 hours, Luke's reverted 5 times. This is strange, since he's already gone through a block this year and I would have expected him to be more careful. I've gone by the last block period of Luke's block - which was 2 weeks. I had the option of increasing it to a month, but chose 2 weeks as the last time, Luke had taken some corrective action. With respect to Andrze, given that he was blocked for 24 hours in February this year, 48 hours seems reasonable to prevent disruption. Hope this answers your queries. Do write back for any other clarification. Thanks. Wifione Message 18:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, I was looking at the +21 bit reversions, I didn't really notice the others until I looked closer and saw those reversions as well. Luke is claiming that the 2 week block was a mistake as he actually reverted himself which caused him to go into the 3RR status and was subsequently blocked (though the edit summary suggests that he was given a 0RR restriction (perhaps voluntary?)) - I've left him guidance. Should he agree to a 0RR restriction with you, could the block be reduced to 48 hours (I agree that he deserves some forced cooling off time). Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No apologies required. You're assuming good faith and that's how it should be. About Luke's block, if you notice his block log, the reason that Luke is forwarding is not exactly what the blocking administrator has written in his block log summary. Furthermore, even before the 2 week block, was a 1 week block. In other words, even if I were to consider the 1 week block, Luke would be up for a 2 week block. Unfortunately, given Luke's arguments on his talk page, it is quite clear that he doesn't still realise where the mistake is primarily focused on. I would not be reducing his block period, as I'm not convinced he realises what's going on out here. Do write back for any other clarification. Thanks. Wifione Message 19:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning response[edit]

Hello again, Wifione. My sincerest apologies for the unsourced info. I'll add the sources as soon as I can. I've been quite busy lately. It will take some time, but I will find the sources. Most, if not all of them are already on other Wikipedia articles related to Aquitaine. As a user on Wikipedia, I understand the importance of sources on articles. I've just been so busy with other projects that some of my latest edits have been rushed. Don't worry, though, the sources will be added. Toolen (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay. Do please be careful. Not every administrator would be so patient. Thanks for taking the effort to understand our sourcing policies. Wifione Message 18:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Wifione. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC). 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.

Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:LukeJordan02 Block reduction[edit]

I just found out that he was blocked and that it was later reduced. I think this was a result of poor research into the user. If you go above on his talk page, you'll see that he also violated WP:3RR at List of ECW pay-per-view events 6 times and when I called it out on him, he self-reverted, although he was fully aware that his posts wouldn't count against 3RR. He promised to drop the issue, which he did, and that's why I never went to 3RR. But I am very disappointed at the fact that he got into an edit war immediately after on another article. The fact of the matter is that he broke 3RR more than once on various articles, so having his block reduced was not a wise decision. Feedback ☎ 16:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving the note. Let me look at Luke's case given his past few days edits and see what can be done. Wifione Message 08:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

User talk:Lukejordan02[edit]

Wifione, two things:

  • This is a revert.
  • Luke agreed to post his restrictions at the top of this talk page. Instead, he removed everything from his talk page.

I know that based on the terms of the unblock, I can indefinitely block Luke, but I thought it would be more prudent to consult with you first. Just so it's clear, I'm not in favor of showing any leniency.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going through all of his edits, but this and this are also reverts. As a courtesy, I'm pinging Dusti.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: please indefinitely block Luke as per the terms of his unblock. @Wifione:, I apologize. I was away today picking up my in-laws and bringing them here for a visit. Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the last one being a revert under his editing sanctions. It's not an "undo" or a rollback, it's removal of text that's done during the course of editing. He's allowed to delete items from articles to help improve them, whereas the first and last are clear and simple reverts - of which piss me off after I went out of my way to be clear as day what the difference between blatant vandalism is and what a content dispute revert would be classified as. Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dusti, please clarify two things. First, where in his editing sanctions does it say that a revert is not defined in same manner it is at WP:3RR? Second, you didn't address the issue of his removing the restrictions from his talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 let me be clear in saying that I already asked for him to be blocked, because regardless whether I disagree with the definition of one of his edits, there are still two others that violated his editing restrictions. When I was assisting in laying out the editing restrictions for Luke, my definition of a revert would have been the sole removal of text that one editor had added to the article. This was stemming from his constant reverts of the addition of a genre to the All Hope Is Lost article. You are right that the removal of text from the one mentioned above is, in fact, a revert as outlined in 3RR, but I wouldn't have been as concerned with that edit as I am with the other two. In any sense, I will be formally withdrawing my offer to Mentor Luke, and I am still in support of him being indefinitely blocked as outlined in his editing restrictions. Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It want apart of the deal that I must keep the restrictions mentioned on my talk page. Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please don't block me i am a very useful editor and the two links above where it says here and here are also reverts wasn't honestly, the Judas Priest album I removed a genre I seen had been added without a source and hadn't even checked the history of the page and the one on the 2014 Heavy metal page wasn't a revert at all, I was sorting the page adding albums and columning the upcoming albums and checking/adding sources when I come to the album I searched for ages to try and fine a source with that name and couldn't so I removed i. Lukejordan02 (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit was also Vandalism as it is easily known by looking on Google or looking at sports site/newspaper that the deal hasn't gone through so by adding that to the page needed to be removed, if I hadn't someone else would of. Lukejordan02 (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss things with you Dusti and Wifione, please. Lukejordan02 (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Luke:, I'll take up the issue on your talk page. But the fact is that you should have been so very careful rather than assuming what revert can be done and what cannot be done. You are simply riding on pure luck that @Bbb23: did not indefinitely block you when I was away over the weekend.His call, if he had blocked you, would have been absolutely right; and I don't think you would have had a chance to continue editing here. @Dusti: took so much effort on your behalf. What in heavens are you doing? We editors really do not have the time to keep a watch over you on a daily basis to mollycoddle you to edit properly... Anyway, I'll continue on your talk page.
@Bbb23, thanks for keeping a close watch. I would agree with you firstly that I shouldn't have reduced the block, and secondly that Luke is displaying little value and adherence for editing restrictions that were chalked out with such effort. Let's see how this can be salvaged. Wifione Message 08:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dusti, I'm sure Luke's going to be more trouble sooner than later. Thanks for taking the effort any way to mentor him. Wifione Message 08:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We had no way of knowing how it would go - so reducing the block should have been done as we were assuming good faith. At this point, he has been given rope and used it to his detriment. Dusti*Let's talk!* 14:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wifione and Dusti, all I can say is the two of you have the patience of saints. I have read the discussion on Luke's talk page, and it's not clear to me why Luke hasn't been indefinitely blocked, not just because of his violations of the editing restrictions but also because of what he's said in the discussion. I seriously don't think he merits the time the two of you have put into this in trying to help him, and I don't think he'll ever "get it". However, just as before, I will take no administrative action as long as you feel that you want to continue with your endeavors.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One can only assume so much good faith before you can no longer in good conscience. I have hope Luke will come around, but @Bbb23: when/if the time comes will you hit that block button for me? Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like assisted suicide. :-) I take my cues from both of you, but Wifione will do what he thinks best.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kemp[edit]

Hm. You've blocked the editor and now an IP, User:86.150.239.54 comes along to remove exactly the same text. I think I'm at 3RR which I try to avoid. Hard to edit when this sort of thing occurs. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did an auto confirmed protection on the page for a week. Hope that works to stop the IP hopping. Thanks. Wifione Message 13:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled Request[edit]

Hi. Per your request here, I have now provide sources for all the articles I created. (if you don't believe me, check here). In addition, I have created even more articles today, and now I have created 57 articles (also according to this), exceeding the standard minimum requirement of 50 articles. Therefore, I request a "re-review" on my application for autopatrolled rights. Thanks and have a nice day :) (P.S. If you want me to create a list of all the sourced articles I created, please reply and I'd be happy to do that.) --Dps04 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheFallenCrowd[edit]

Shortly after the 24 hour block for editwarring, he's doing it again.[2] I also think he is the IP who did the same edit, but he tells me I'm lying. Interesting that he keeps adding Kemp's claim that he emigrated to the UK in 2007 (see "Furthermore, Kemp pointed out" when he was clearly in the UK for some time before that, eg in 2004. My guess is that he'd been in the UK for some time and finally made it permanent via right of ancestry. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, he's taken me to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dougweller: Sorry I had logged off by the time you left this report. I guess ANI is taking care of this issue pretty fast. Ping me if you need any other administrative assistance on the article (I don't have it on my watch). Thanks. Wifione Message 12:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I didn't even notice it until there had already been a big response. I love it when editors react like that. Makes it all so easy to see what they are like. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lukejordan02's editing[edit]

Hello Wifione, I've checked the Dead Man Down article which was edited by Lukejordan02 after I added a reference to the film's score music in the infobox.

Reference was about Zaz, whose song "éblouie par la nuit" is played both during the film and during the credits and if you check imdb site ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2101341/soundtrack?ref_=tt_ql_trv_7 ), you'll see that this is true, unlike Lukejordan02 wrote when he edited. I thought it was interesting to insert that link since Zaz is a foreign artist who is already part of the en.wikipedia project.

Since I'm new here, that I'm not native in english, I can admit that a contribution can be edited if there are misspelling, mistakes or anykind of disrespect of the way one is supposed to contribute on the project.

However deleting a contribution which is actually acurate is somehow disturbing for me. I wrote him that my contribution was correct and sent him the imdb link but I was left without answer and I don't see my comments anymore on the talk page. Since I've read that there is some kind of dispute over Luke's behavior, I'd like you to tell me: 1/ did I misplace, misspelled or did anything unexpected with my contribution? 2/ my contribution being in fact reliable is it possible for me to put it back without that being a hassle

Please excuse the way I write in english,

Yours truly,

Marc --Marcavok (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Luke had reverted the edit perhaps because you did not provide a source that Luke could verify. I am not sure how good IMDB is considered as a source. If you have verifiable sources that confirm that Zaz did contribute to Dead Man Down, just add back your claim to the article. You would have no problems. Read citing sources to understand how to add sources to articles. You could give sources like Huffington Post, PurePeople, Cinema Critic or Metro Journal. Am sure there should be no problem. Write back if you need any other assistance. Thanks. Wifione Message 08:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to warning[edit]

Why are you doing this to me? I didn't give you any lip for blocking me, I took it in stride, and my appeal attempts were done in accordance with the guide on appealing blocks. I did exactly what you asked. I provided a source to back up my edit. This was even discussed on the talk page. Yet, despite what I've done to avoid making the same mistake again, you're taking the side of this Garzakh fellow or whatever he calls himself? I was on the side of the majority, this time. The same user tried to do the exact same thing months ago. The issue was discussed on the talk page, and me and the majority of the other editors were in agreement that the 2014 date was the correct date. I even added the reference. I'm sorry if this sounds rude. I don't mean to offend you, but this time I knew what I was doing. I was even thanked by one of the other editors. There is no reason for me to be blocked again. My edit was in accordance with the consensus agreement that had been reached. Is that not what I was supposed to do? Did I not do what was asked of me? If so, then why the warning? Do you just not like me? Please explain. Toolen (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for replying. I'll continue the discussions on your talk page to ensure we don't jump back and forth. I'm copying your discussion to your talk page for reading ease. Wifione Message 07:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bmicomp returns![edit]

Thanks! BMIComp 12:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Thank you for the offer. I appreciate it, but first I should make a general disclaimer: I've been an admin (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Piotrus). I lost in in the aftermath of an ArbCom case (WP:EEML) about which we can chat more if you'd like, through I'd prefer to do it in a more private forum. Since then I've not been successful in regaining adminship, due to reasons I describe at User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#Mud_sticks.2C_or_on_activity_of_editors and some other mini-essays I've written on that page (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3) for a recent case study. If after reading those you are still willing to retain your offer, I may take you up on it, through probably not before next year. I think one attempt a year is all I can take; those things are somewhat stressful :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for the reply and for sharing the links. If you wish, I can communicate on this over email. Best regards. Wifione Message 11:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]

Precious[edit]

Let sleeping dogs lie
Thank you for articles starting with Vanisha Mittal, dealing with articles for deletion, proposing candidates for admin, contributions tp policy and Let sleeping dogs lie, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • What a pleasant surprise! Thanks much for cheering up the morning :) Wifione Message 15:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Therequiembellishere[edit]

Can you please block this editor indefinitely. He has not learned his lessons at all after you blocked him 3 years ago. His actions have proven that he clearly has no intention of contributing to Wikipedia at all: [3] [4] [5] [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE9A:860:10D5:BAC4:9800:15B4 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. What's wrong in his edits? I'm not able to see anything wrong. I might be missing what you're alluding to. And why are you edit warring with him without giving explanations? Wifione Message 07:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

Thanks for Rollback rights[edit]

H! Wifione, Thanks for giving me rollbacker rights that you thought me worthy for this. It would be help to improve wikipedia and fight against vandal. I will try my best. Babita arora 05:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Babitaarora: You're welcome... Write back for any assistance you may need in the future. Thanks. Wifione Message 16:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expired PROD's[edit]

Could you cause a couple of expired PROD's to vanish into nothingness? :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dusti: Hi :) With respect to the book, there are too many book reviews in reliable sources for the book, thus proving the notability of the book.[7][8][9][10] So I don't think the book should be deleted. With respect to the BLP, if this prod is a BLP prod, then again the article cannot be deleted purely on the basis of the BLP prod as there are multiple reliable sources quoted within the article, mainly three interviews of the individual. Do tell me if I'm reading this wrong. Good to see you around. Thanks. Wifione Message 18:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freshly Squeezed Music[edit]

Hello - you were one of two mods who deleted the above page. I was hoping to get it reinstated so I could add notability citations... not an expert at WP but would appreciate your help or advice... now the article has gone, obviously there's nothing to fix! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copydawg (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You could perhaps list out here the references you plan to add, and I might be able to guide you better. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (music) to understand the notability guidelines for bands and stuff related to music. Write back for further assistance. Thanks. Wifione Message 14:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you do when -- wikibullies vs consensus[edit]

Hi i read your comments and I have a problem i don't know how to solve. Which is for the page Young Earth Creationism I did BRD even though I had no idea what it was.

1. I put it on the talk page, and I waited 2 days. 2. I made the edit, and people started putting it back immediately. 3. I was 3RRd (didn't know that existed when it happened) 4. Then I put on the talk page proof, I had no desire to reach a consensus as I didn't know I needed to. 5. Then I found better data. 6. Now people come a long randomly like the last change and say, "there is no proof on the talk page" there is, and put it back.

7. The people putting it back won't engage in any form of discussion, and I don't know how to tell them, "come to the talk page and discuss it, or leave the article alone"

The people reverting are currently NOT discussing the changes. The Gallup pole on the page has to do with Young Human Creationism and not Young Earth Creationism. It is contained within the same article further down that these are two different beliefs.

Exasperated, at people putting back the edit and not participating in the discussion. There ought to be some form of rule that says, if you are putting back reverts you either need to put up or shut up.

What to do?

DevonSprings (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • My suggestion remains the same. If somebody reverts you, and you see that they are not agreeing to your edit, keep discussing on the talk page. You've not read dispute resolution apparently. Please read it to understand what to do in editing disputes. In this particular case, there is more than one editor reverting you, and you need to really curb your tendency to revert them. Like I said, read up dispute resolution before warring. Thanks, Wifione Message 10:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with EW[edit]

Hi Wifione. I'm writing because I see you've been patrolling the 3RR noticeboard and I need some advice. What's best practice for when another editor keeps edit warring (but hasn't violated 3RR) and refuses to engage in any sort of discussion? In this case I've left messages on the talk page, their user talk, in my edit summaries, and even in hidden comments in the article itself but they simply aren't responding to my requests that they discuss. The only resolution I can think of at this point is to goad them into a 3RR violation but that doesn't seem nice and I suspect it wouldn't be viewed favorably by admins. Especially because this editor is a newbie, DNB and all that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for advice, not action, but I'll gather the diffs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page: Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: 173.67.158.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [11]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]
Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16], [17]
Diffs of attempts to get user's attention in edit summaries: [18], [19], [20]
Diffs of attempt to get user's attention in article hidden comments: [21]
Diff of attempt to get user's attention on my own talk page: [22] (talkback: [23])
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've warned the user. If he reverts again without participating in talk page discussions, write back here and I'll block the user. Wifione Message 17:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have I taken the right approach so far? If something like this happens again with a different editor do I take it to an admin or to ANEW, or is there something else I could have done first? And, I'm currently at 3RR myself. Am I correct in my guess that my attempts to get this editor to discuss do not "exempt" me from 3RR? Meaning, if he reverts again without discussion I have to wait until my own 24-hour period has elapsed? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Yes. Read WP:dispute resolution to understand what to do in future issues. You're not exempted from 3RR. Drop back for any future assistance. Wifione Message 17:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DR isn't available if one side isn't discussing, am I mistaken? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If one side isn't discussing and simply reverting, go to EWN. Wifione Message 18:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Wifione. The anon editor appears to have hopped IPs and is continuing to revert without discussion. Your assistance please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two more reverts without discussion: here, here. The second of these is from a third IP from the same region. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another revert from a new IP. I've requested temporary semi-protection. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Fast Passenger[edit]

Hi, wifione, I've by mistake reverted an edit on Delta Fast Passenger just before reading your aummary on WP:ANI, I haven't done it wantedly but only to restore the content by Aaron-Tripel, which was removed by the blocked user. I restored it but later saw your message on the notice page. So, what shall I do, if you can consider it I'll not touch that page for a while.--Vin09 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Self-revert your own edit, and leave a note on the edit warring noticeboard in the relevant thread that you've self-reverted your own edit, so that no other administrator blocks you. And immediately please. Wifione Message 17:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've have added the statement below your comment here. Is that ok?--Vin09 (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Should save you from getting blocked. Wifione Message 17:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any Suggestion[edit]

The User:Chandra447 reverts on Kalyandurg was normal, but some of these activities happened after my warnings on his page, and the following articles are created by me, which he targetted like page1 saying it is WP:OR, pasting the same warning to me, this edit saying the page was not a per wiki rules, quoting the summary as wrong information. If you can give suggestion how to handle them?--Vin09 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read dispute resolution. But start by discussing issues on the talk page of every article in question. Finally, if dispute resolution doesn't work, come to EWN and we'll help. Wifione Message 18:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Vin09 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

False entry[edit]

 Done Wifione Message 18:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. Wifione Message 18:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I draw your attention...[edit]

....to this please? Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sad... I don't think 0RR will work for Luke. I'll change the restriction to 1RR when his block expires. Wifione Message 18:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with making Luke's restrictions easier for him to be disruptive. First, remember these restrictions were in exchange for unblocking him after his not learning from repeated blocks. Second, it's mollycoddling him and refusing to accept the fact that this is a waste of a lot of editors' time. Think of the ordinary editor who breaches 3RR and is blocked. Then, they go back and do it again. So, you give them special dispensation that they can't be blocked for breaching 3RR unless they revert more than four times. I really think we need to be more realistic. There's only so much rope we should give any editor. He's out of rope. Indeed, in my view, he was out of rope a while ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23, how are you doing? Yes, I'm ok with blocking Luke indefinitely. Wifione Message 20:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe, it doesn't matter whether I disagree with you. It doesn't matter if I express myself somewhat, uh, forcefully. You're still unfailingly nice and civil, Wifione. Anyway, as I mentioned on my talk page, I wasn't advocating blocking Luke indefinitely now. I was simply opposed to changing his restrictions. Regards, as always.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because for me, you'll always be the most respected editor on Wikipedia purely because of your commitment to BLPs. Wifione Message 20:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's kind of you to say so, but I'm not sure I want that burden. Before I became an administrator, I spent a ton of time at WP:BLPN. However, since becoming an admin, I spend very little time there, mainly because if I get involved in content disputes, I can't act administratively. Nonetheless, I spent so much time there before that until recently, it was still at the top of my stats for Wikipedia pages. It's now been barely exceeded by WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • :) I was referring to not only the time you spent at BLPN, but also to BLPCRIME, the burden of which you will have to carry forever :) Irrespective, always good to see you around. Take care and see you around. Wifione Message 20:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Wifione. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC). 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.

Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]

Assuming[edit]

That DarkLiberty is not going to stop. Please check the bottom area of the talk page of Scientific Outlook on Development since you blocked him and he came back. I do think he is editing under a variety of alias's which I mention on the talk page of Scientific Outlook on Development. I do not think he is going to change and will continue doing what he is doing, trash talking on talk pages and making edits as a variety of sock puppets and not furthering cooperation in editing for a good encyclopedia. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earl, don't accuse editors of being sock puppets unless you're ready to report the editors at SPI. Thanks. Wifione Message 16:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DISPUTE WITH DrFleischman OVER EDITS HE NEVER READ![edit]

I attempted to update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

and ran into a dispute with a user called DrFleischman that seeks to control history

I was trying to add about 450 characters to update the case status. APROXIMATELY 300 of which were about a new case from the STATE OF WV. SOMEONE THAT EDITS AND DELETES WITHOUT READING IT SHOULD NOT CONTROL CONTENT OR BE AN EDITOR!! The original stuff he decided to cutout appears to be inserted by a user named Famspear. Sylvia Burwell has been making speeches that OBAMACARE IS "settled law" and his edits make it appear this is true. The number of edits made by DrFleischman is quite staggering and seems to "show an agenda". DrFleischman appears to make about 250-300 edits a month. This appears to show an agenda, or ?? You can check history, but below is what I was trying to add.

Notice of Appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. Case 14-5183. On August 11, 2014 a notice of related case was filed for the case of State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW). Lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center are handling the appeal.

On July 29, 2014, the State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW) was filed which challenges the "Administrative Fix" and other constitutional violations of the law.

Also, why is there no page for Legal Challenges to the ACT such as:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

173.67.158.36 (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First thing is first, please check your caps lock - it seems to be broken. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on this discussion concerning changing of citation for entire article[edit]

Hi Wifione, could you provide your comments about the policy citevar and brd in this section, one party believes it abides by it and I hold a contrary opinion. Note: I will not be editing that article. Disclosure: I am an involved party and I was blocked by you for 24h for violating 3RR rule on this page, and this is the concerned discussion. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spam and sock puppet issue[edit]

Could you see this and User talk:Pratikmore8805 page, he is adding repetitive links and also has sock account User talk:Pratikmore8. I filled a sock investigation here.--Vin09 (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gumpwert1978 Revert[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your assistance on WP:AN3 with the Richard O'Dwyer article. It appears that Gumpwert1978 (talk) has reverted the Richard O'Dwyer article without discussion again, in spite of your talk page warning. [24] I would like the opportunity to collaborate and discuss this article, but this disruptive editing has made any progress impossible. Any assistance you could render would be greatly appreciated. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 01 October 2014[edit]

Abuse of Power Conspiracy[edit]

I tried to create a new page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Legal_Challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act to contain an unbiased list of all challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I started the page and hoped it would be completed by others. It was rejected because it was FICTION!!! Either your editors are idiots or in a conspiracy to limit AND REWRITE HISTORY!!! User:Cutest Penguin AND User:DrFleischman SEEM TO BE WORKING TOGETHER. PLEASE INVESTIGATE!!! PLEASE SUSPEND THEIR ACTIVITIES!!!

The stated reason for rejection "The proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance—not just a summary of the plot. You may wish to add this content to an existing article. As anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are free to do so yourself."

This subject is encyclopedia in nature AND NOT A FICTIONAL SUBJECT!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.162.239 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) 173.67.162.239, you might try ratcheting down the rhetoric. As you already know, there is an existing article on this subject, Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. You copied the first sentence of that article into your draft and then made a mess of the rest of it. You probably created the draft because you can't edit the actual article as it is semi-protected. If you wish to behave reasonably and add something to the existing article, go to the article talk page and discuss any proposed changes. Back on September 26, 2014, you proposed a fork (your draft), and it was rejected. Meanwhile, lose the attitude, or you risk being blocked for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2014[edit]

LIMITING HISTORY - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]

Their seems to be an ALL OUT EFFORT TO LIMIT HISTORY ABOUT THE Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by some users. I tied to add again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Legal_Challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

It was rejected again because "Wikipedia's task is to record facts and to use external text as a reference, not to regurgitate that which exists on other sites. Please rethink this article."

When I asked on the Talk page.

"I know of no other site that has a list of ALL challenges. To find this information for free requires a detailed search at a federal court house. Or it requires costs of $ .10 a page, and a subscription to www.pacer.gov. Please explain where these sites are?" 

   How would I know? But if this costs $.10 a page it seems to me that the sites are copyright, too. And we cannot have copyright violations. Fiddle Faddle 14:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please just add the page, and let users DOCUMENT HISTORY!! This information would be in the reference section of any really good Encyclopedia173.67.162.239 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hijack of History, Censorship, and Conspiracy173.67.163.154 (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[edit]

It appears that User:Bbb23 User:Fiddle Faddle User:DrFleischman are engaged in a conspiracy to limit history, censorship and conspiracy. I tried to create a new page to document the legal challenges to the Legal Challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. All traces to that effort are erased. The alleged reasons for deletion and refusal were obscure. Please Investigate. 173.67.163.154 (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Below is what was there:

Draft:Legal Challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the legality of the legislation.[1][2] This article describes the challenges by date and case number of every case mounted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Format is date, case number, court, Constitutional Challenge [Y/N] All references should include date filed, actual government case number designations and status.

On July 29, 2014, (1:14-cv-01287-RBW)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. The State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al was filed which challenges the "Administrative Fix" and other constitutional violations of the law. State of West Virginia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant (HHS) has requested an extension of time to respond until October 17, 2014. [1][2]

On December 31, 2013, (1:13-cv-02066-CKK/14-5183)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Cutler challenges the constitutionality of the Act, both on its face and as applied to him and his constituents. Cutler asserts that the provision requiring individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or face monetary penalties violates the religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a previous Supreme Court Decision , “1947 Everson v Board of Education”, and allows the government to favor one religion over another religion. The process of empowering the United States Government to Certify that applicable individual is part of EXEMPT RELIGION or SECT, Cutler seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. Cutler also seeks to "rollback" the law to the status it had prior to 2014 on various grounds, arguing that the law NOW violates the Constitution by allowing unequal protection under the law.(If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your PLAN till October 1, 2016, but only if the insurance commissioner of your state agrees[3]). The federal government's motion for complete dismissal is under review, as is the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Notice of Appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. On August 11, 2014 a notice of related case was filed for the case of State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW). Lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center are handling the appeal.

On October 30, 2013, (1:13-cv-01214-WCG/14-2123}. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and Robert T. McQueeney, MD v IRS. On September 22, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash basis, and want to prevent everyone from being required to be covered by health insurance. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction blocking the IRS from collecting the penalty in 2014, on the argument that it would violate the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers. [4] [5]


References 

   http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/30/west-virginia-attorney-general-suing-white-house-over-obamacare/
   http://www.pacer.gov
   http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/transition-to-compliant-policies-03-06-2015.pdf
   http://www.pacer.gov
   http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/275834801.html

GOCE October 2014 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors October 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 October 2014[edit]

Halloween cheer![edit]

Happy Halloween!

Hello Wifione:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – IPadPerson (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
  • Thanks IPadPerson :) Hope you had an enjoyable Halloween too. Wifione Message 06:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 October 2014[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wifione/Archive_2014_(Aug-Oct)&oldid=1187147748"