Misplaced Pages

User talk:Wifione

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wifione (talk | contribs) at 18:15, 8 September 2014 (→Expired PROD's: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:15, 8 September 2014 by Wifione (talk | contribs) (→Expired PROD's: add)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

CLICK HERE TO LEAVE A NEW MESSAGE
(This user operates an alternate account on Misplaced Pages; any other same named accounts outside of Wikimedia/Wikipedia are not this user's)

This user is an abuse filter manager.Please feel free to contact me for any administrative assistance on the English Misplaced Pages. Wifione
This admin has been awarded the Order of the Mop
This user has AWB rights. (verify)
This user has an SHA-512 committed identity.
See /committed identity.css.
This is Wifione's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2015
X's RfA report for the week
Updated every half an hour only; for latest status, kindly go directly to the RFA page


RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online

Talk archives for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
Wifione ....... 05:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
W1I1F1I1O1N1E1

Leave your messages below this. Thanks. Wifione 10:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

afshin (singer) article

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

You've got mail!

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)

Thanks a ton. Wifione 09:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

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 - Repel All Boarders ‖ 00:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Revert last undo" on "Pogrom" article

I'm a bit unclear on what exactly you're prescribing as per . 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

Report User:Iñaki LL

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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 01:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Wifione, I left an additional comment in dispute resolution. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Warned. Wifione 17:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

IP has returned

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)

  • 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 10:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • 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 Misplaced Pages's rules again self-promotion, I don't think we should allow that. ~jcm 03:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
      • 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 17:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

GOCE July drive and August blitz

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)

Lukejordan02's block

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 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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 18:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 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 18:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    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 19:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    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 19:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Warning response

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 Misplaced Pages articles related to Aquitaine. As a user on Misplaced Pages, 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)

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

You've got mail!

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 19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:LukeJordan02 Block reduction

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)

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 08:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

User talk:Lukejordan02

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)

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)
@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 06:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
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 06:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 13:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

I would like to discuss things with you Dusti and Wifione, please. Lukejordan02 (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@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 08:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@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 08:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
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 14:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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 23:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Kemp

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)

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

Autopatrolled Request

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)

TheFallenCrowd

Shortly after the 24 hour block for editwarring, he's doing it again. 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)

Hm, he's taken me to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@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 12:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
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)

Lukejordan02's editing

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)

  • 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 08:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to warning

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)

  • 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 07:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Bmicomp returns!

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

RfA

Thank you for the offer. I appreciate it, but first I should make a general disclaimer: I've been an admin (Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

Precious

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)

User:Therequiembellishere

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 Misplaced Pages at all: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE9A:860:10D5:BAC4:9800:15B4 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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 07:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Thanks for Rollback rights

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)

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

Expired PROD's

Could you cause a couple of expired PROD's to vanish into nothingness? :) Dusti 17:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@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. 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 18:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Categories:
User talk:Wifione Add topic