Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:35, 21 June 2013

Home	Talk	Contributions	To do	Email	Images	Images	Edit Count

• This user is overloaded in real life (and busy!) and may not be active as earlier and only reverting vandalism for now.

• If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.  • In case you reply after five days, please leave me a Talkback message.  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

Archives

Archive 1

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩ 

Speedy deletion declined: Rineloricaria lanceolata

Hello Vivvt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rineloricaria lanceolata, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a test page. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Noted. My bad! - Vivvt (Talk) 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Copied

Nice template. Copied it. :) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you are looking for work, you can try to take Swayamvaram further, towards FAC!--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

You have proposed that Gangadhar be deleted, but you have not stated a reason why. You have applied a "hoax" tag to the article, but did not explicitly call that out as the reason for deletion. For the record, I do not believe the article to be a hoax, simply poorly written (and possibly unverifiable). The Parashar name claims a significant place in Indian and Nepalese history, derived (or so it is claimed) from Parashara himself. This particular article attempt to document how that name migrated from India to Nepal, through the person of Gangadhar. This may or may not be significant, but I'm not sure that your proposed deletion is appropriate. I would leave the article tagged as unsourced, and in need of copy editing, but not necessarily move for deletion. You are free to take the matter to AFD if you feel it is necessary. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI, please be more careful in your tagging

See diff. Theopolisme (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Dominic Smith (baseball)

Why thank you for giving me less than two minutes to make improvements.--Yankees10 16:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And now it was deleted and re-created. Thanks.--Yankees10 17:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, he probably isn't/wasn't notable enough for an article anyway.--Yankees10 17:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Marketplace Homes

Hello Vivvt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Marketplace Homes, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. Mkdw 21:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mark melymick

Hello Vivvt, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mark melymick, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: multiple assertions of importance - professor and numerous acting credits. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 18:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion without reason

You have proposed that Why? (1971 film) be deleted, but have not provided a reason for this. You have been cautioned about this in the past (see User talk:Vivvt#Proposed deletion). If you don't give a reason, how is an administrator to evaluate whether your proposal is valid or not? WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 20:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

csd no contest

This can not be used if you can tell what the subject of the article is. Project Baikal is apparently a publication produced by an organization of architects & engineers in russia . I rather doubt notability , but that's not a question for speedy DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wassup

Are you patrolling or are you being patrolled? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like latter is true with amount of notifications I have received so far! ;) - Vivvt (Talk) 13:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha! Stay safe. Or they might block you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am sensing waaaaaaay too many kids around Misplaced Pages these days. Just praying that they should get their school/colleges started and then overloaded with homework and meaningless project activities. Then they can keep off Misplaced Pages. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah. Ask me! I saw your post at Tito's talk page and I believe its high time now to have an admin who knows and understands anything and everything about Indian articles than just rules. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi a page Clonakylti I created was deleted (I understand why- I didn't know the rules at the time-and am not looking to get it back!!!) Is there any way that it can be completely deleted now? ie the page with the deletion notice as it still appears in google and can be seen by others. Thanks for your help JulieSmith123 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No. It cannot be deleted completely. The page with deletion notice is for future reference if anybody creates the article with same name again. But I can see another article Clonakilty. Did you want to create this one earlier? - Vivvt (Talk) 14:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help. No I didn't want to create Clonakilty- I just want to get rid of the one I did make as if I had known the rules I wouldn't have tried to make it! So all the deleted pages even when non-famous people write about themselves or pages with libelous titles stay on google and wiki with deletion notices too? No exceptions?? JulieSmith123 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about Google but for Wiki there are no exceptions to the deletion notice. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks for your help anyway JulieSmith123 (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Brainy J. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Halo: Spartan Assault, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The article looks good now. It was absolute hollow when created but now can stay. Thanks for the notification. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I clicked the unreview button by accident, and then after I realized my mistake I marked it reviewed again. -- Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Vivvt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking me or the other user does not help as there is still no consensus for the edit war. Both of us will jump on it the moment unblocked. So this block does not serve the purpose. Also, please read the talk page discussion and several warnings given to the user for consensus. I am surprised that I am blocked for making several attempt for consensus. - Vivvt (Talk) 00:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

so let me see -- you're asking to be unblocked so you can go back to edit warring? I think you're missing the point of this block -- you're blocked to prevent you from doing exactly that. --jpgordon 01:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Threatening (promising?) to resume the edit war when this block expires will only result in another block for a longer period.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I dont think you understand my concern here. In spite of blocking both of us, you should have helped us (and article) to reach consensus. Thats far more important here as of now. Am I threatening or promising? I dont think I am doing either. Knowing my history on wiki, I have not done that so far. - Vivvt (Talk) 01:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vivvt, IMO you should not have edit warred. Yesterday, I too had dispute with that user, but I did not choose to edit war although my case was much stronger and his was apparently trolling. You are much more experienced user, while s/he is possibly a new editor. The whole focus should have been on developing consensus. Since Isscsirsp do not listen to the other side at all and always press his own view, you could have just waited for other editors to get involved instead of repeatedly reverting his changes. But I hope your block get lifted.--Vigyani_talk 01:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vigyani. I understand what you are saying. He/she simply does not listen. We cannot have wrong information on wiki just because other editor does not listen. But anyway, admin choose to block me so I cannot do any further. Thanks for your concern about me. I appreciate. - Vivvt (Talk) 02:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Vivvt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am neither threatening nor absolutely interested in unblocking myself if admins do not understand the whole crux here. Blocking both the editors is not the solution. Helping them get a consensus is. The other editor was warned, messaged several times. Again, I don't want to talk about him/her or justify myself. My only concern is to get the consensus based on the talk page discussion. If admin can help for that, its well and good. I am not begging for unblock. It would anyway go away in a day and considering my inactivity in last few days, it wouldn't matter to me as well. But the whole point is being missed by admins. Btw, see this and this as well before you take any decision. - Vivvt (Talk) 02:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am going to unblock you, not based on the language of the request, but on what I believe to be an evolving understanding below on what you did wrong and your promise to stick to the article talk page. Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I strongly second/support this unblock request (very rarely I go forward and make such request). He is a very reputed editor of Misplaced Pages, when Vivvt asked the other editor to see the film at YouTube and verify the spelling, he felt, that video might have been manipulated. Weird rationale. And Vivvt is blocked for edit warring with this editor? --Tito☸Dutta 08:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your words, Tito. I appreciate. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Admins do not settle content disputes - that is a job for the editors in the dispute, and what you should do is discuss it on the article talk page and follow the consensus that develops between the editors who take part. Anyone who engages in edit warring instead of doing that is going to get blocked, even if they are right about the content, and it's no good trying to blame the blocking admin for not sorting out the content dispute for you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, I am not blaming any of the admins for blocks. I am just surprised to see that all of them thought its the only solution to the problem. I am sure none of the admins involved above have read the talk page discussion and attempts for consensus. (Argh...I am tired of this word now!) As I said on the talk page, other editor is not ready to believe what video shows and providing n number of sources to prove it otherwise. There are two other editors besides me (Shakirfan and Writeecrit) and one IP user have supported my claim but other editor does not listen and keeps reverting everybody. And what admins expects us to do? Be gentle, nice, keep posting on talk page, giving warnings to other editors and just dont change the content to avoid edit warring and let them do whatever feel correct? I tried doing that several times and I dont think it helps. It just gets you blocked!! - Vivvt (Talk) 15:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I did read the talk page and formed some tentative conclusions as to the merits of the dispute, but that's irrelevant, and I don't intend to share them with you. There are dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving the failure to achieve a consensus. Those are the mechanisms you must use in a content dispute, not fighting in the article. And I did consider one other alternative to blocking both of you, and that was to lock the article, but i generally don't like doing that if the edit war is principally between two editors as a lock unfairly impacts all editors for the "sins" of two.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am perfectly fine with not sharing your conclusion. But can you do a favor? I would appreciate if you can comment the disputed content till we reach "consensus". Let all involved editors decide and then put it in the article. If I do that once unblocked, I would be blamed for edit warring again. Rather, I tried doing it and got blocked for the same reason. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• What you can do when your block expires is return to the talk page and continue the discussion. You can even raise the idea of commenting or tagging the material, but I wouldn't do it yourself. My doing so would be the same as a content comment, and I don't intend to do either.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• That should be fine. Thanks for the suggestion. Will wait till the verdict of this unblock request or block expiration, whichever happens first. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• This really seems to have all been in good faith and I'm sure it won't be repeated - I'd support a quick unblock here, if we have the blocking admin's agreement? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Bbb23 and Boing! said Zebedee for the unblock. Thanks all for their support. I appreciate. - Vivvt (Talk) 21:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• So sorry to see you blocked and that too for such a stupid reason. But it was simply your bad luck. Had the issue been noticed by some admin who had knowledge of the subject i suppose he would have known whats wrong and whats not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • • • • Exactly. --Tito☸Dutta 18:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Freedom at midnight? --Tito☸Dutta 21:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thats apt for the timing. - Vivvt (Talk) 22:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• You may want to read Misplaced Pages:BOOMERANG--Isaacsirup (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• What do you mean? --Tito☸Dutta 23:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Dil Se

DarthDuncan

I've declined your speedy because the author added loads of text after you'd posted. I've prodded it as non-notable. It'll probably go to AfD in the end. Peridon (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. No problem. Thanks for the notification. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Guess what? Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DarthDuncan. Peridon (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It went too fast than expected. :) - Vivvt (Talk) 19:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. I realise that you have interacted with User: Isaacsirup in the past. Could I please ask you to take a look here:Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic behavior by user Smarojit? Thank you. :-) --smarojit 06:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)