User talk:Wifione/Archive 2012 (Nov Dec)

Rise of the Zombies
As Rise of the Zombies has aired and is the recipient of commentary and analysis in reliable sources, I have expanded it and returned the article to mainspace. More work can be done certainly, but WP:NF is met.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problems here. I suspect it might have been better if you had moved User talk:Corn cheese/Rise of the Zombies than create a new article. The page history wouldn't have been lost. Your call here. Wifione  Message 09:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would moving the userfied one to over-write the title and then reverting to the better sourced version then save the history? Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll have to delete the title to move the userfied page. So my suggestion is, delete the article you created (after copying the contents somewhere), move back the userfied page to the title page, then copy back your contents. Wifione  Message 03:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can do. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops. See now that the newer article has several additional improvements/edits by others, including some from the editor who had the userfied version, since being created.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let's just forget it and relax :) Let it be. See you around. Wifione Message 07:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Request
I am mostly an inactive editor and feel I do not need Rollback any longer. I still tend to browse Wikipedia, and as it is a one-click tool I find it troubling. I was wondering if you would be so kind as to remove it. (I had originally only requested reviewer rights, the admin had also elected to give me rollback as well.) Hazardous Matt(talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problems. Done. Wifione  Message01:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hazardous Matt (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Your Message
Thank you for the offer. I want to discuss certain things before that. Can I email you? -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 09:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problems. Do please email. Wifione  Message 09:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Join the Impact (2nd nomination)-Keep
I think this should be relisted. I was just one of the two editors who actually produced some sources. Both of us didn't vote, staying neutral. The two who did vote just waved their hands and said: hey, we know there are a lot of sources. Churn and change (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Churn for the note. Let me look into this and get back by tomorrow morning. I hope that doesn't delay the issue. If your concern is right, I'll relist it. If not, I'll inform you appropriately. If there's anything else I can help you with, do tell. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 03:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No hurry, I don't remember seeing any policy violation (BLP/LIBEL/COPYVIO type), so a day or two is no big deal. Churn and change (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Churn and change, thanks for the patience. I've seen the AfD again and the views left by the individuals. Orange Mike commented that there was substantial coverage in an NYT source about the organization but one source did not substantial coverage make for him. You and Stalwart11 were neutral/did not comment. You provided one source you considered reliable and substantial but you commented that that source, perhaps combined with the NYT source, was still not enough for you to !vote keep. You did not !votedelete either. Cirt and Mr X were the final !voters who !voted keep mentioning they had found many links with substantial coverage. While Mr X provided names of newspapers, Cirt provided a direct link to the Google News Archives with a wide and expansive statement. The links, each with substantial coverage of Join the Impact, brought forward in this process on an aggregate by the editors were as follows:NY Times, Chicago Tribune,Edge Boston, Boston again, Austin Chronicle,The Crimson andChicago Phoenix. The links provided by Cirt and Mr X were not opposed by either of you, Orange Mike, Stalwart or any other editor over a period of 7-13 days. In the sequence of events and !votes, after careful synthesis of each side's arguments, I believe that there has been the required debate with extremely strong policy support from Cirt and Mr. X and, in part, from you too. Consequently, I do not feel that it is appropriate to relist this deletion discussion. And I do not also believe that this is a no consensus close. In this juncture, apologetically (for having made you wait), I'll have to decline your request. In case you so wish, please do take this close up atdeletion review. In case you do proceed to DR, I'll support you with whatever material you might require and shall not participate in the DR discussions unless and until requested specifically to do so by any commenting editor. I do hope that this does not inconvenience you or slight you in any way. That is not my intention. Again, with due regards, thanks for contacting me. If there's anything else I can assist you with, please just ask. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 08:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, I went through Cirt's links right to left, and found nothing in JSTOR, scholar and books (only the English phrase "join the impact" used in a literal sense) and stopped there; should have gone on to news. I agree with you, and am not planning a DRV or retagging. Incidentally, the talk page still links only to the first Afd discussion, not the second; looking to fix it now, will let you know if I have trouble with it. Churn and change (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Modeled on Talk:Richard Tylman which has had four nominations.Churn and change (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Churn. See you around. Wifione  Message 00:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Channel List Pages
Hi Wifione, I am going to keep this short and to the point. I understand that it is easy to default to deleting on all the channel pages. They seem like obvious, public, and unreferenced knowledge. However this is not true. I was relying, and still need to rely on the Sky Italia channel list for work. I am an intern at a media production company and the Sky Italia list was my reference for research on what Sky Italia offers in certain packages and what programs are offered on certain channels in general (not current or specific offerings). Yes, it would be nice if whoever compiles the list could cite to either a physical document, a corporate page, or a on-line source for their information but regardless of the strength of link citations, the list was reliable and useful. It is information that is important and edifying. Since I am not Italian, nor do I subscribe to Sky satellite services, Wikipedia was my best source to help me interpret the Sky.it websites and their corporate pages which are all in Italian. I am a smart person, I know Spanish, but when I needed to confirm what I was reading, I relied on the Wikipedia page to help me. I already left a talk comment on the deleted page if you would like more clarity on why someone would care about a list of channels. Lanaii7 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted the talk page comment (though you will still be able to see it) and explained to this user their options in terms of approaching you and then DRV; as they said the page is in use for work, I also offered to email a copy to help them in the short term. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks John for looking into this. Lana, I'll get back to you soon. Wifione  Message 14:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lana, I thank you for your note. However, I would not be able to bring back the set of lists. What John above mentions is doable and can assist you in your research. We may, upon your request, email you all the articles (their contents basically) so that you can continue your research. But on Wikipedia, the consensus has been to delete the set of lists. So I should be unable to do much here except email you the complete lists. We'll await your suggestions. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 09:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

signature
Dear Wifione, could you explain the request regarding my signatuer ? ( I m not sure why I am being given the option to set my own signature if I am supposed not to use it ) best Hypatia (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thanks for your note. I got confused seeing 'Hypatia' written as your user name when your username is Johnsopc. That's why I said it'll be wonderful if you could write Johnsopc instead of Hypatia. Please do write back if you need any other assistance. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 03:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your request, I'm just trying to figure out whether it is something I have to do or whether it's a personal preference that you are expressing, which is why I was pointing to my source of confusion, namely giving me the option to pick a signature when I am expected to just use my user name anyways ... :) Hypatia (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. Basically you have to go to Special:Preferences and change your signature from Hypatia to Johnsopc or something that sounds similar to John. Truthfully speaking, it's just a request and I shan't put any compulsion on you to do that. If you like the name Hypatia, I'm alright with it. You might just have to reconsider changing your signature to Johnsopc if someone else also requests. Thanks again for the effort to reply. Wifione  Message 14:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * there is this User:Nickname] or [User:Example|Nickname]) are strongly discouraged, as it can be confusing for editors" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * True Red Pen. Thanks for the note. I'll give John some leeway right now as I'd blocked him just last week for a 3RR violation. I'm sure he'll take up this issue and change his name. Wifione  Message 00:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Help on your RfA question for me.
Hey Wilfione. I was paging through Requests for adminship/Buggie111, and came across question 13, which seems to have been the main reason about 5 opposees voted oppose. Could you help explain the proper answer to that question, please? My first answer would be "articles that pass other notability criteria", but something tells me it goes beyond that. Any help?Buggie111 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Buggie, good to see you around. I don't know how many opposes you got for that reply. I'll help you with one answer; try and find others, and if you can't, drop back in, I'll help you again. Lists are one type of articles that need not have qualified on our GNG and may still float around. Wifione  Message 16:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * More specifically, individual items within a list need not be notable or have passed WP:GNG. A standalone list, as a group, is bound by WP:LISTN, and hence needs to be notable. In theory, a subject could meet WP:PROF and not meet WP:GNG and that would merit an article. Churn and change (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the perfect answer. Strike my reply Buggie. Use Churn and change's reply as a model reply. You may also wish to see subject specific notability criteria in other areas too, for example Notability (Sports). Wifione  Message 16:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that some, not all, of the subject specific notability criteria only work to help in the determination of whether or not someone meets GNG. Notability (Sports) is one that specifically says the subject does not need to meet GNG.  Notability (people) points out that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."  Just a general point to remember when using those guidelines. Ryan Vesey 17:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability says, at the top: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (emphasis in original). So, yes, we could have a prof. who is a "named chair" who has no significant coverage in secondary sources (so we wind up with a stub). I admit practically that looks unlikely, but for profs in other countries and in social-science fields, at times the secondary coverage may be in foreign languages. While those are acceptable, Wikipedians may just not be able to dig much of such up, and in that case WP:PROF works without establishing WP:GNG. Churn and change (talk)
 * It's interesting that WP:Notability includes Notability (people) in the box and Notability (people) mentions that meeting those criteria don't necessarily determine notability. Am I the only one who finds this contradictory?  Should a discussion be had to change one or the other? Ryan Vesey 17:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * People who meet some of those criteria can still be rejected under exclusionary criteria such as WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT. So just passing a subject-specific notability guideline is not sufficient; nor is it necessary. Neither is passing WP:GNGsufficient or necessary. Churn and change (talk)
 * Thanks, I've always been looking at that from the wrong direction, it makes much more sense when I consider that. Ryan Vesey 18:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the replies. Buggie111 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Buggie, my suggestion would be that you should feel free to bounce on me (or any other admin) any question that you feel you don't have an answer to. It's better to be honest and upfront than enter into an RfA with partial knowledge. Wifione  Message 00:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * With pleasure. Buggie111 (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks a ton. But I hope you don't get put down by the fact that I rejected your autopatrol right request. Don't take it otherwise. Just follow what I've written there at RfP. Thanks and best. Wifione  Message 05:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, I understand a bunch. I'll just improve then come back again some time, after all, though it nice too say that you have the right, it really doesn't effect you anyway. It effect new page patrollers. Thank you so much! TBrandley 15:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

need your help
Dear wifione, I really thank you for taking such active interest in the Amity page. I need your help in the issue of Dr Ashok Chauhan as over the years he has undergone a lot of pain due to a ring of blackmailers who from all sides have tried to damage him. you are well aware of many of the articles which came out. sadly journalists and other people can be bought to write anything. further sadly good journalists and editors take what has been written and take it for the truth and write an article based on it. Thus a chain reaction starts. herewith i would like to direct you to a scan of an original letter from the German Criminal authorities confirming that there is no warrant/search and also that there is no interpol search.<small<(redacted) a humble request is that do not circulate this or put it up on websites. i am taking a step of deep trust in you. This issue, after many years, because of your putting up on wikipedia is causing damage to so many students of Amity. I would really request for your judgement on this. There cannot be any document more clear than the one i am giving you. With many thanks. Higheredutrust (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the trust you have. I'll however advise you to always exercise extra caution while sharing such material. Let me go through the material but would again mention that it would be better if some reliable source were to quote what you are mentioning. It becomes much easier to immediately use the reliable source to quote the details than our personal comments. I feel sorry to disappoint you like this, but really, it would be better if a reliable source mentions what you are claiming. Thanks and kind regards. Wifione  Message 15:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

what can be more reliable than the authority itself? Higheredutrust (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for answering to my question. My question is, If another administrator (not you) stumbles upon the other account (Kharzaii), do I run the risk of getting blocked? Thanks. I won't use that account. Kharzaiii (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll redirect it to your current account. Don't worry. Wifione  Message 15:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, it's already been done by Nyttend. So no sweat. Wifione  Message 15:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Munoz vs. Weidman
Just asking about your close of the above AfD, can you provide more detail behind it, as none of the keep !votes addressed the central thrust of the nomination, that being covered by only routine coverage it fails the WP:NOT policy, which of the sources in your view are both reliable and provide that ? Passing WP:N is not a guarantee of a subjects suitability for an article if it also fails the core policy of WP:NOT. Mt king (edits)21:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mtking. Let me look into this and get back to you. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 15:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mt  king (edits)19:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies for having taken this much time to reply. I scrutinized the AfD again as per your request. I have to mention that while closing the AfD, viewing the issue from your perspective, you did make sense with quite good logic, and still do - to an extent that at an individual level, if I had been a participant in the AfD, I might have !voted delete. At the same time, I realized that the keep arguments could not be ignored in this issue. Despite the fact that many of the references for such an event do come out as routine, when I checked sources provided by the keep !voters - for example, likethis Sportsnet link, where the fight is rated amongst the top five Fuel TV fights - there was little chance that I could disregard the keep arguments. I have however deliberately not qualified my 'keep' close; in other words, I am neutral towards an early renomination. I hope this answers your query to me. If it does not, please do tell. Thanks again for leaving your note. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 17:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was Mitchell Heisman deleted?
I remember the Mitchell Heisman article being very helpful a few years ago. I am now writing a paper that will mention him, but can no longer find any information about him or his Suicide Note on Wikipedia. Upon further investigation, I have found that his article has been deleted.

I am bewildered by this, as I just came from Wikipedia articles for individual Pokemons. A search reveals that there are also pages dedicated to various Guiness World Record holders, many of which are notable only for the fact that the person in question holds a record.

Mitchell Heisman is certainly more notable than a Pokemon, and, as a holder of a Guiness record, is equivalent to all the other record holders. His article also had more sources of unique press coverage than many of the record-holders. I do not understand why informtion on him is not available. 108.161.114.113, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. The article was deleted post a deletion discussion more than two years ago. If you believe the article on Mitchell Heisman should be re-created on Wikipedia, please go ahead and do so. But before that, kindly read up on the guidelines on what minimum criteria are required before creating an article on any person. Please feel free to write back for any assistance in this issue. Wifione  Message 15:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

My editing
Hi. Since I've obtained reviewer rights, per your comments and my editor review, I've been working on my grammar and spelling in talk page messages and, of course, articles. Do you think it is getting better? I've also been working and creating more articles, and having been working on grammar and spelling in that department as well. Do you think there is a chance I could get granted 'autoparolled' rights soon as well per this? Happy Thanksgiving, TBrandley 01:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Brandley. I can't promise anything. I'll look into this.  Wifione Message 16:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Double Talkback
I replied at both request for permissions and at my talk. Thanks. Go Phightins  !  20:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello indeed - long time so see/speak. I'm very well thank you, hope you are as well? GiantSnowman 13:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes of course :) Like I said, good to see you around always. Have fun and best always. Wifione  Message 13:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Help...
Would you have a look at Articles for deletion/List of Armenian churches in Azerbaijan? I can't find it in the logs and it's not properly set up. Often a bot pops in to sort things like that, but it's missed this one. I feel it could do with being on view as currently I seem to have squashed the discussion (intentionally), and was hoping for some neutral views. I've used Twinkle for AfD for 18 months, and wasn't at all sure how these things worked before, anyway. Thanks if you can sort it.Peridon (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problems. Done. Relisted the AfD appropriately. Good to see you around. Wifione  Message 04:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BTW a friend of mine is having minor worries about an ANI case you were involved with (see my talk page). I can see where she's coming from on this, but you've probably gone into this anyway. Peridon (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it surely. Regards. Wifione  Message 03:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Query about closed dispute and subsequent reactions.
Hi, I apologise if this is not correct procedure, especially as you have closed[original complaint], but it seems to me that the anonymous editor is violating quite a few guidelines, such as WP:PERSONALin their "discussions" - calling MJH names and being unnecessarily aggressive and crowing, whilst MJH has been trying for the most part to be reasonable. Certainly being a very poor victor. Might a warning be appropriate in this case? Again, apologies if I have violated any guidelines on WP:Tattling or anything like that, but MJH is doing a lot of useful work on a very under-edited area of Wikipedia (jewelry) and I'd hate to see them run off. Mabalu (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking into it. Thanks for the note. Best. Wifione  Message 03:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Rollbacker?
Hi Wifi, I was curious as to why you granted Rollback rights to Sfgiants1995; he seems relatively new for a Rollbacker. Please respond on my Talkpage. Cheers,by Kevin12xd  Talk to me  This was posted at  01:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin. Good to see you around. With respect to Sfgiants, I reviewed the editor's contributions and found the editor's contribution history demonstrated an ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism. That is the primary reason I granted rollback. I hope that answers your query. Do feel free to request any assistance at any time. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 06:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Self note
Check prefswitch internal error. Wifione  Message

Richemont
Hi Wifione - Regarding the edit war here last week, the IP editor might have been none other than Nrcprm2026 akaNmpay aka Dualus, an ARBCOM blocked user, based on use of the 71.212 IPs and Tendentious comment patterns cited by Amble in WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dualus/Archive.

Regardless, there have been no comments to my proposed compromise text. Do you object if I update Richemont as suggested inTalk:Richemont? Thanks again. ---MJH (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the delayed response due to my extended vacation. Could I be of any assistance now? Please feel free to ask. Wifione  Message 16:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA. Kevlar (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)