User talk:MBisanz/Archive 9

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video User talk:MBisanz/Archive 9

Thanks for your Nom

That was actually quite painless - even nice. I must have been one of the lucky ones. Thanks for shoving me into RfA, I'm sure I could have procrastinated for another 3 years without the push! Cheers, Paxse (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! MBisanz ^talk 20:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps User talk:MBisanz/Archive 9

Talkback

Ipatrol (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Belated B-Day (Lyrics borrowed from MC Chris)

04:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Smile!

04:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Equinox Festival deletion

Hello

You recently deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equinox Festival) even though I placed a request for how I could improve the article on its talk page. I added significant coverage to merits its inclusion on wiki as a notable event. Including links to several major media sources and online discussion forums related to the festival.

Even a cursory search on google using Equinox Festival in quotes will garner hundreds of sites where the festival is being talked about, previewed and reviewed.

It would have been polite to at least leave a response to the discussion on the talk page for the Equinox Festival wiki.

Please let me know what can be done to revert the deletion.

Thank you creatcher --Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.191.253 (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CompleteFTP Server

I recommend that you add the standard "AFD is not a vote" rationale to your closing. This AFD might appear to the average "not AFD savvy" editor to be a split vote/no consensus. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. MBisanz ^talk 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Copy vio

Dear Matt, Is this a copyright violation. I placed a csd tag on it and someone said it failed to meet the criteria for CSD:

• File:GooeyButterCake.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well another admin beat me there and disagreed, but I agree with you so I tagged it for deletion. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I thought CSD applied to copyright violations so I don't know why the other Admin removed the csd tag. Its clear-cut to me. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Followup

Hello,

I did get a response via email about uploading my logos. I think I'd rather put them up directly than through Wikipedia Commons (that way they can't become free images?). I got some instructions, noted below, but I still can't seem to find the "other item" option from that link. Am I missing something?

You can still use the images on the English Wikipedia without releasing them under a free license. If you upload them directly to Wikipedia rather than the Wikimedia Commons they can be used under the doctrine of fair use. If you want to do this you can use the upload form here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload> and selecting the "other item" option from "The logo of an organization, brand, product, public facility, or other item."

Yours sincerely, Brandon Weeks

Thanks very much Zepolekim (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to the non-free upload form. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

what the?

What in god's name are you talking about? I changed Obama to "he"

How is that defamatory?

You are out of your mind.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing his signature to Hitler's as you did in [1] is totally unacceptable. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. No kidding. That was completely unintentional. I edited from the older version, which I had on the screen. I didn't mean to do that. Sorry.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTS Writers' Anthology

how can there be no consensus, if there has been only 1 comment on it besides my nomination? LibStar (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RELIST, second relistings are discouraged. I've occasionally done them if it looks like things will change, but the discussion in question had run 10 days withonly one other comment to keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Peter De Souza

Hi I just came across an posted article on 'Goans in Field Hockey'. My name was listed as a former Canadian Field Hockey player, but the article appears to be deleted. I am interested in getting a copy of the article that was deleted........and yes, I did play for Canada.

I am unfamiliar with the rules but I am interested in ascertaining how administrators would delete an article without validating the authenticity of posted articles. Pdesouza (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter De Souza where the article was deleted because people could not find sources proving he (you) played hockey. If you could provide sources (newspaper citations, record books, etc), then the article could be restored. I've also gone ahead and emailed you a copy of the article. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Not sure if I wish to be going through an exercise of proving that I represented my country in Field Hockey just to satisfy some administrator (no criticism). While I do not wish to have my name in 'lights', I will provide photos or articles to confirm my authenticity. One only needed to contact the Canadian Field Hockey association to validate that I do exist. Would you advise how one submits sources of information to prove authenticity? Thanks Pdesouza (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if there is an online source of it, you can link to it in the form of [2], if it is something that isn't visible publicly, say the Association's database, you could take a screenshot and email it to me at mattbisanzyahoo.com and then I could validate it on the article. Best. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Independent Financial Centre of the Americas

I have placed a tag for deletion on these articles Independent Financial Centre of the Americas that is an advertisement to the company but it is masquerading an article. Also to the biography for the president of that company Gaetan Bucher because he is a non-notable person. Would you please review if the tags are correctly placed. Also let me know if I need to place a notice on the user who created these pages, or this is done by an administrator? Thanks. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with your reasons for deletion. It is usually customary for the person placing the tag on the article to also place it on the creator's talk page. Hope that helps. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Googlovic

Hi, I am not happy with redirecting Googlovic to Gasparovic. The discussion was not conclusive on redirecting the article. And worse, nobody could find the term Googlovic anymore in the encyclopedia and understand what it means. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueray1978 (talk o contribs) 05:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a 10 day debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Googlovic where the result was quite clear, you can contest it at [{WP:Requests for undeletion]]. MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Shiny things and related...

Aww, thanks. MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to thank, have a nice Easter, many articles are awaiting deletion next week. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

HELP

That's funny, my name is Matthew too!:) Anyways on to more pressing matters.How do i make my page look cool!? I've had an account here for awhile and my page looks lame. Tell me how please? Leave me a message. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Swampcroc (talk o contribs) 22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:User page design center. MBisanz ^talk 10:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Since your on a role...

would you mind adding {{subst:afd3|pg=Richard Phillips (captain)}} to the afd log as well? Everytime I try, I get edit conflicted by you, hence the request :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a good weekend :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

I'd like to make a question regarding this article that was deleted. At the end of the discussion I made a question but no one answered it, "Does the scan of a different newspaper article constitute enough proof? And if so, where should such a scan be hosted, in Wikipedia, or any other website (is it totally irrelevant)? I think I might get such document". Please leave a message. Kabrinsky (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It would need to be hosted on another website like imageshack.com and linked to at a WP:Requests for undeletion discussion. MBisanz ^talk 10:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nora Samosir

Wow. You snuck in that "close" between my edits. As you have noticed, I have actually found critical reviews in reliable and am in the process of doing some major coopyedit and re-writing. Thank you for having faith in my ability to do a proper dig for sources. I wish people would treat WP:BEFORE with more diligence and not turn it into WP:AFTER. If you have any advice as I continue, I will gladly listen. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy vio

Hi Matt, This is a clear copy vio from Christie's:

• File:Coo-0003-1-.gif Its also orphaned. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

All done. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• One final thing. I've moved these 5 pictures under the "CC BY SA 2.5" license to Commons from English Wikipedia. They are generally of excellent resolution. Feel free to delete the originals here as there are no FOP issues:
• File:D50 007609.jpg
• File:CapriFaraglioni.JPG
• File:October 6, 2006 1.JPG
• File:Panglaoisland.jpg
• File:Abberley, St Mary's Church & Green.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

GATAC

Hi MBisanz, can you help me understand why this page was deleted?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Gold+Anti-Trust+Action+Committee

The article may have been no good, but the organization is surely notable. How can I undelete it, or should I provide a new article if the old one did not meet guidelines?

Please advise, thanks & regards,

Chris --Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgettings (talk o contribs) 02:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee that led to the article's deletion. You would need to write a new article and then submit a WP:Requests for undeletion, you might try asking the other people who commented at the debate for help. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Debate was very limited, it seems to have been deleted for lack of notability. But I think that is clearly wrong, GATA is 10 years old, and cited by hundreds of secondary sources -- in the last six months alone by Times of London, Fox New, Dagens Nyheter, Bloomberg & a lot more. I think the "debaters" had an agenda. I am not in any way related to GATA. How can I see the original article? It is gone. I could write a new one but would like to see the old if possible. I will correct it and include the citations. Thanks for your patience w/my questions.

Chris Cgettings (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK update

DYK is due for an update, and none of the regular DYK admins are online. Can you do the update? I can give instructions. Shubinator (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, Howcheng's got it. Shubinator (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

can you help me get set up with this script, because people have been saying that I need to have the bot approved and stuff, so I just want to get through this approval so I can use it again. First, I think I have to make a seperate account for it? Bu?boy52.4 (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1 says to click here, which links to a page for creating an account, but when I retype my password and E-mail, it says that this account alrady exist (Obviously), so what do they want me to do? Bu?boy52.4 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Now how do I know if it is Automated or Manually Assisted? Bu?boy52.4 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

well, I just click a button that says Go! and it makes the pages I asked for, so it is Automated? Bu?boy52.4 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a bot flag? Bu?boy52.4 (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How do I get it? Bu?boy52.4 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How is this:

[[Category:Open Wikipedia bot requests for approval|]]

[[User:|User:]]

Operator: Bu?boy52.4 (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic. Results are checked once the task is over

Programming Language(s): Java script

Function Overview: Creates pages related to Insects

Edit period(s): Whenever I tell it to make the pages, and click Go!

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function Details: Creates a list of pages that I give it, with my own input page content, and *** will be replaced with the page name.

Discussion

I was just asking if this is OK, I wasn't going to have it done on your talk page! Bu?boy52.4 (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It said it wasn't a bot. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BugBot52.4 Bu?boy52.4 (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for New Jersey County Colleges

Shubinator (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed templates

Hello! Just to give you a heads up, I notice you closed this discussion on the 11th. Anyway, I have removed the templates today. Hope you had a nice Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Paul Conneally wiki page

Hi am working on a piece for a journal on haibun and renga and noticed that the page at wikipedia on Paul Conneally (which was never comprehensive) has been deleted - in these fields (including being one of the widest quoted when it comes to the definition of haibun)Conneally is widely known (also former editor of World Haiku Review and Simply Haiku) - in the world of haikai arts including renga (renku), haiku, haibun and haiga Conneally is very well known and I think meets notabilty criteria - probably also for his wider artistic stuff too - psychogeographic and situationist explorations using haikai and other processes.

There are a number of references to him in other articles in wikipedia that now link to nothing when it comes to Wikipedia - maybe its a lack of knowledge of the area of haiaki arts that's resulted in the deletion?

From the cache of the page it looks as though someone very recently placed some references that were all 'locked' due to being from 'access my library' but there are other references to him around the web and in paper literature.

I believe Conneally was also a member of seminal post-punk uk band Dum Dum Dum (around 1979/80whose work has recently been relreased in the Messthetics series although that wasn't on the original wiki page about him.

Could it be reinstated? With maybe a call to get it updated properly?

<http://www.contemporaryhaibunonline.com/pages_all/haibundefinitions.html>

<http://www.worldhaikureview.org/2-1/masthead.shtml>

http://www.poetrymagazines.org.uk/magazine/record.asp?id=4876 (from ORBIS archived at the British Southbank poetry archives)

http://www.slashseconds.org/issues/003/001/articles/conneallypugh/index.php from /seconds academic art journal

<http://www.archive.org/details/circleoffire>

http://home.clara.net/nhi/mg0177.htm (Review of journal of British Haiku Society including work by Conneally)

<http://www.knex3.org/x/extra/ex02.html>

Many more... 86.26.196.80 (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:Requests for undeletion for reinstatement of articles and vetting of sources. MBisanz ^talk 07:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Surfer

Looks like I've nailed it see Kelly Slater. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sweet article! MBisanz ^talk 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of P2Pspot wiki page

You recently deleted the P2Pspot wiki page. During the discussion it was asked that I provide more relevant resources. Right after I posted additional resources the article was deleted. Can we please re-instate the page so this additional content can be reviewed?

Additional URLS:

• Lanthorn Paper
• Killer Startups
• Programming Blog

--Preceding unsigned comment added by User:webbpage (User talk:webbpage 13 April 2009 --Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC).

Please see WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

more evidence

here--Uzhuthiran (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll review in a bit. MBisanz ^talk 17:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you believe it?

I just typed in your name by memory, do I get a prize? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of State University of New York units/archive1

Hi, I left comments at the above peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Peer review/New Jersey County Colleges/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Feeling like I might be getting wikihounded.

User:Gandalf61 made a somewhat suspicious edit of the introductory first paragraph of classical hamiltonian quaternions

My concern is that a stealth attempt to change the first paragraph and hence the agreed upon topic of the article is just a prelude to further disruptions.

While at this point I am assuming good faith the aim of User:Gandalf61 appears to be to delete as much information on the subject of Hamliton's approach to quaternions as possible.

The most recent episode was campaigning to delete yet another subsection of the article. As you may recall tensor of a quaternion was already deleted, and this latest episode was to also delete the vector of a quaternion. To deny this subject any substructure, is getting to the point of being disruptive, but I still hope to fix that problem with discussion.

Changing the introductory paragraph in order to skillfully open up other sections for disruption however is beyond the pail.

Maybe he will stop since I am now monitoring his behavior closely? --Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebum (talk o contribs) 02:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no experience in this area, you might try asking User:Arthur Rubin who is an administrator with more experience. MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, not that article again... I just don't understand why people fight over that group of articles so much. I'd suggest pinging David Eppstein as he is active in this area. Tothwolf (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of State University of New York units

Shubinator (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of FC de Rakt

May I ask why you deleted FC de Rakt? There was clearly no consensus - there were 6 votes for delete, and 5 for keep - and the arguments on the keep side were far more cogent, with many on the delete side making no contribution. ðarkuncoll 07:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD isn't a vote, the arguments pointing at the lack of specific sources were convincing. MBisanz ^talk 07:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it isn't a vote, which is why it was even more surprising. Don't you regard Reuters as a specific source? ðarkuncoll 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get to review the sources, I only get to review the arguments. MBisanz ^talk 07:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So you didn't look at the article? It was very well sourced. ðarkuncoll 07:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't read it, as I avoid making personal judgments about the articles per my AfD philosophy. MBisanz ^talk 07:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article itself was an essential part of the argument - including the improvements I announced during the course of the debate. It was sourced from Reuters, MTDTV in the Far East, The Observer, and others. Please explain how not reading the article is a good way of forming a judgement, or why you deleted when there was clearly no consensus. ðarkuncoll 07:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD policy requires the admin to be uninvolved in the article, so the admin does not judge it on their own personal feelings but on the community consensus at the AFD. The consensus pointed at deleting for lack of reliable sources to establish notability. MBisanz ^talk 07:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No it, didn't - there was no consensus. And if you don't regard Reuters or The Observer as reliable independent sources, then I don't know what constitutes such. I shall recreate the article. ðarkuncoll 07:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with the close, I would suggest you appeal to WP:DRV as a direct recreation is likely to be deleted under speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#G4. MBisanz ^talk 07:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for FC de Rakt

An editor has asked for a deletion review of FC de Rakt. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ðarkuncoll 07:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting collapse

Re: [3]

i removed the collapse for now, I agree that there seems to be no agreement on a ban of either Jack or A Nobody, and there is a lot of tedious drama created by both sides.

But there seems to be a breakthrough, overwhelming support for a mutual topic ban, which Roux created and several other editors from all sides endorsed.

If no agreement is reached today, there will inevitably be more drama on ANI later. Hopefully later today the mutual topic ban will be put into effect, and the section can be collapsed for good.

If you think that collapsing all of the sections except the mutual topic ban section is okay, please do. Ikip (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I decided to try another method, subpaging will let it stay around until an admin closes all the polls and solves the size issues with ANI. Best. MBisanz ^talk 09:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

okay. Ikip (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Bison

Thank you for nominating me for administratorship, it appears to have been an outrageous and uncompromising success, and I am in your debt, my good sir. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A user has opened a thread about your removing rollback rights from inactive users. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MBisanz removing rollback facility for inactive users. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Speedy keep" is not the same as closing something early

This summary is incorrect. "Speedy keep" suggests overwhelming votes with sound rationales to Keep an article so that the AD can be closed early. That did not happen. Anyone who would see the summary would be confused and think an overwhelming consensus to keep exists. I've been bold and changed the references to "Speedy close" instead. I trust that's fine with you, because I'm sure you wouldn't want to inadvertently mislead anyone. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the people who voted keep for the article has now reverted back to the misleading Speedy Keep result and insisting it was a Keep. This is exactly why a close should not be listed as keep unless that's what the result was. I would appreciate it if you took the time to clean it up and give an accurate summary so that people can't take advantage of inaccurate wording. DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of City University of New York units

Dravecky (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of tKatKa wiki page

You recently deleted the tKatKa wiki page. Can you kindly give reasons as to why you thought this necessary? As the representative for their record label I am keen to have this page available. Is there a way to re-instate the page with the previous content so that I might be able to update it and make acceptable? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 100m (talk o contribs) 17:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It was actually deleted by User:JPG-GR so you would need to ask him. MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have queried User:JPG-GR, please see response here:

Assuming you are referring to tKatKa, I didn't delete it - it was MBisanz. JPG-GR (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz, I refer you to my previous questions: Can you kindly give reasons as to why you thought this necessary? Is there a way to re-instate the page with the previous content so that I might be able to update it and make acceptable?

100m (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a redirect to a page JPG-GR had deleted and was therefore non-functional. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Both the log, and JPG-GR state that the page was deleted by yourself. Please see here a copy of the log: 06:14, 31 March 2009 MBisanz (talk | contribs) deleted "TKatKa" ? (Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial maintenance. using TW)

However, last week the log stated that JPG-GR deleted the page on 27 March 2009 citing that it lacks 3rd party coverage (a fact I can dispute with many press articles!). I'm not sure what is going on here, but surely either you or JPG-GR are in a position to restore the article no? Kindly advise.100m (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Best to file a WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, have filed request...

Deletion review for TKatKa

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TKatKa. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 100m (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kasaalan (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter."

"Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed."

The article currently has over 5.200 words with 12 printed word pages with 53 KB length already and if we merge the article into main article it will be over 6.000 words. That is why we seperated the article in the first place. Without consulting to the dedicated editors of the main article you shouldn't sentence with a merge into main article decision. Kasaalan (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks-I had been earmarking lots of categories lately. Of regular articles that may be different it would be difficult to try to figure out what classification to give them-RFD (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your SPI question

Hi MBisanz,

You asked "I am interested why the filer of this SPI has used two similarly named accounts while editing it?"

When I was asked on WP:Administrators' noticeboard about using a single-purpose account, I wrote:

"Yes, this is single-purpose account created for the sole purpose of reporting this sockpuppet and requesting action. I will not be using this account for any other purpose. Because the user in question is tendentious to an extreme and is sure to be back, I was concerned about having to deal with a nightmare of reprisals. I created this account as a makeshift form of witness protection program or whistleblower protection program, though it probably won't help in the end."

In giving that explanation, I felt in my mind that I had promised not to use that account again - that I had essentially said it was for use that one time only. When I saw that the banned user had just come right back, it was something that needed to be flagged but I also felt that I couldn't use that account again when I had promised that it would be for single-use, ie. one-time use. So I created a different account, but similarly-named so that it would be clear that I was not trying to appear to be a different person. Now, in explaining all of this, I think what happened is that I had gotten confused between single-purpose and single-use, as in one-time use. As promised, at least as I understood it in my confusion, the initial account served only for that one-time use.

ActionRequests (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Two Sicilies independence movement

Would you consider having a look at admin close/splitting the "joint AfD" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Sicilies independence movement? The two articles being discussed in it (the second being Venetism) are clearly not equal in notability. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 21:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New Jersay sock methinks

Thanks for ending the Jersay report. I almost thought admins forgot about it. Unfortunately, I think I've discovered another sock, this time an I.P. with nearly identical editing habits as Jersay. Is this enough to file another sock report? I'm beginning to think it's a waste of time because Jersay is so persistent in evading bans. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, back to SPI it goes. Some of these sockers have a dozen or more reports on them. Eventually building a long series of reports helps the checkusers figure out how to do a proper rangeblock. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't you just IP block?! IT seems like a waste of time to continually file reports while users can register new accounts 5 minutes later. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Toxic 100

Can you give a rationale for adding an expand tag to the Toxic 100 article? It is essentially a list and having the list only is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I would be looking for things like when the list was made, press reaction to the list, how was the ranking of air pollution arrived at, what companies have been added and removed from the list, etc. MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW

You've got mail.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just read it, thanks. MBisanz ^talk 06:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

fall

Thanks for your get-well message, MBisanz. It really does make one feel better to receive such support. Tony (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Institute for Health Freedom article

Hi Matthew. Thanks for helping out in the recent discussion regarding the proposed deletion of the Institute for Health Freedom article; I'm sure that with time it can be made into a worthy article! Might you have time to take a look at some edits made yesterday by a new editor called HealthFreedomSupporter? My reason for asking is that I feel that his/her deleting text and replacing it with a PR Newswire reference and a link to the organization's own website are not as reliable in terms of sources as were USA Today, the Washington Post and Psychiatric News. Do you think that it would be appropriate for these these edits to be reverted? Thanks again. Vitaminman (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed and educated. MBisanz ^talk 08:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Great work, thanks! Vitaminman (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Somebody with the IP address 75.103.6.164 seems to have reverted your fix and removed some additional material that I added just after your edit. Do we have any way of knowing whether this is the same IP address as that of "HealthFreedomSupporter"? It's only a hunch, but my guess is that it is. ;-) Vitaminman (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

IP registers as a NYC business IP, so only one of 8 million possibilities there. MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs

Hi. I haven't logged in to the wikipedia in a while (real life, etc.) and so I missed the AfD (you were the admin who closed it) for an article I created and had maintained a bit over the years. This makes me sad. I have a few questions. First, should I try a deletion review, so I get a chance to express my views on the matter? Secondly, given the time/effort/writing that I put into the article, is there a way that I can download its text / revision history for myself? Thanks, Doops | talk 14:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You should take it to WP:DRV if you think there is substantial new evidence that was not covered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs. If you would like, I can email you a copy of the deleted page. MBisanz ^talk 21:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Malakov article deleted before relevant issues were carefully discussed

Dear MBizanz:

I would like to initiate this discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia policy to examine, more carefully, the matter of the "Daniel Malakov" article deletion which occurred this week. According to my understanding, you were the Administrator who deleted "Daniel Malakov". (Please correct me if this is a misunderstanding.)

Just now, I performed a search at The New York Times website. I find listed there 268 articles on "Daniel Malakov." This is a powerful indicator of notability. In my opinion The NY Times is not a "Tabloid." Does Wikipedia consider it to be one?

For comparison here are some other The New York Times hit counts today:

Daniel Malakov: 268 (this is pre-sentencing, scheduled to take place next Tuesday 4/21) Sante Kimes: 538 Kitty Genovese: 696 David Berkowitz: 2610 (clearly the most notable murderer of the last 20 years.) Distaffperp (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Malakov (2nd nomination) was open for 11 days and the prior discussion also indicated deletion. You really would need to see a WP:Requests for undeletion at this point. MBisanz ^talk 21:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Policy-talk

You added this template to the top of all the policy-talk pages, but it's not clear that the template is ever useful on any page, let alone all the pages? --Centrx->talk o 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The last place

Anyone should put his face is on a userpage. You even look like an accountant. Put down the books and start chasing women...Kaltenborn (talk) --Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

Re: RFA

Hey MBisanz, thanks for nominating me for adminship, it was actually nice to read what was written and know other people did see value in the effort I've contributed with. I regret to inform you though, that at this moment in time I do not wish to go through the application process to become an administrator, it's not too high on my priorities. Thanks once again. :) Borgarde (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

re-opening my RFA

Thanks. I mean that. It is a great distraction for me. ^Law _shoot! 10:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panda Toes

Could you please look at this again and relist? Sources came to light after the delete !votes occurred. No one other than the nom commented after that point. Hobit (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but relisting is discouraged when there are more than a couple of comments. The current relisting guideline does not provide for relisting when new information is presented. MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been significant discussion about this and DrVs that have succeeded based on the new information argument (I think you closed one a while back). At the least the delete !votes claiming their are no sources need to be discounted given that they are factually untrue. That would get you to no consensus in a hurry. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer DRV, if only because I don't like judging content, and judging if those earlier comments are satisfied with the later sources is a bit outside of what admins should be doing. MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Proposal

Okay, fixed now. Kirill ^[pf] 23:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please assist me?

Hi. I have just created an arbitration subpage called Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop/Mythdon-PD with only the "." symbol in order for it to be created. However, I need you to format the page in the way it should be. Thank you. --Mythdon t/c 03:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

OTRS question

What does the permission for this image say? We probably need permission from the subject as well as the photographer for using an image depicting someone at least arguably identifiable doing illegal drugs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket merely confirms that oaktowncrack.com is the copyright holder and does indeed release it to GFDL, no mention of the subject or photographer's views on the matter. MBisanz ^talk 14:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your decision to delete

I had a look at the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treecat and counted 14 delete, 4 merge and 10 keep (including 1 comment). I'd say this is a clear "no consensus".

I know that a decision is not made based on counting votes, but those in favor of keep (including me) have voiced arguments as well. Could you please explain how you came to the decision to delete? Debresser (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I expanded my close a bit. A further explanation would be the lack of reliable secondary sourcing was a fatal flaw that killed the notability of the article. Google hits alone do not create notability and the arguments on lack of sources were convincing. MBisanz ^talk 07:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you courteous answer, and in such short notice.

The same question I'd like to ask about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorverse concepts and terminology where 10 were in favor of deletion and 8 of keeping. Again, as one of those in favor of keeping this article and in view of the strong arguments brought forward, especially the arguments of "core article of the Honorverse" and "glossary", I'd like to understand your decision, please. Debresser (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanded. In that case it was that people could not prove the topic of "concepts and terminology" was notable, due to the lack of secondary sources covering that concept. In my experience, I've found such articles tend to be good import candidates for related Wikia wikis. MBisanz ^talk 07:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That is true. Nevertheless, I feel, this last decision is likely to be contested. Thank you for your trouble. Debresser (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

please do contest it. There was no consensus on how to handle this. I think that it was closed based on the general view of the closer on what was required for these article, not the view of the consensus.

DGG (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bevill State Community College

Royalbroil 15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK problems

Hello! Your submission of List of colleges and universities in Nevada at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Hello! Your submission of Connecticut State University System at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 17:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Brown (martial arts instructor) (2nd nomination)

Hi there. Quick question, I know your thoughts on relisting but really, to close this as no consensus when the weak keep acknowledged he hadn't re checked his links (they didn't work) and the keep cited the subject's own company? If neither are really keeps, how can this close as no consensus without turning into re-nominating again? I just don't see how closing this as no consensus is the right close when the keep was so poor. Any thoughts on this? I'm not going to DRV because I don't care enough, but I can't understand this close. Thanks! StarM 01:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well jmcw's comment got a very low weight, but JJL did come back with additional sources that he thought made the case. If someone had found an article to merge/redirect it to, like a list of martial arts developers, technique page, etc that would have been my preferred choice to an NC close. And of course this article was at AFD before, and I suspect unless more sources develop, it will be back at AFD as WP's standards slowly increase. Really one of those "I don't have a good answer and wish I did" situations. MBisanz ^talk 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A list might be a good idea if there are enough of them. Too bad I know nothing of the field to figure it out. I think this one's going to be a forever NC close because no one cares enough. Oh well :) Happy Monday StarM 12:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marz (rapper)

Would you be willing to re-open? This discussion has been compromised by sockpuppetry. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see here, I have created a lot of work for myself by uncovering this sockpuppetry. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I saw, good work. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

nomination

I'm very flattered, however I decline the nomination. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bah. Ok. MBisanz ^talk 05:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Freedows OS

Keep? Based upon what... my comments about it not fulfilling policy and not only entirely correct but went without rebuttal! At worst it was non consensus given that there were two delete arguments and a single keep argument, with the other two voices being a pathetic cry to keep it for no reason and the other simply giving the reason "per Olaf Davis". Did you forget that the entire purpose of reviewing the AfD is to take a non-partisan view of the outcome of the discussion? I hope you did forget, because otherwise, your ability to read and comprehend an on-going discussion is worryingly faulty. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to no consensus per your request. Also you may wish to review my AFD philosophy at User:MBisanz/AfD. MBisanz ^talk 22:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. I support your entire AfD philosophy, so I suppose you simply implement it better than I would. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Nobody's Fault But Mine

Would you consider reviewing the closure of this AfD in the light of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JamesBurns (checkuser results: here)? A relist with the sock comments struck or a pass at DRV would probably be a good idea. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 14:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R&B musicians too. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lazys too... sigh. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Two were already relisted, I've done so for the third. MBisanz ^talk 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Naga Chaitanya

Hey, can you re upload the article, so I can usefy it. Thanks! Universal Hero (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Done at User:Universal Hero/Naga Chaitanya. MBisanz ^talk 22:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

BBY Ltd

Can you have a look at BBY Ltd in relation to the edit war with LibStar. Do you believe it is appropriate to include Company Management? Additionally the line in relation to a reward in BRW Magazine?

Thanks --Preceding unsigned comment added by Zip1010 (talk o contribs) 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a bit outside my area of knowledge, you might try asking User:Daniel or User:Darkfalls for more help. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of colleges and universities in Nevada

Royalbroil 00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles left over from closed AfD

Yo Matt, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq-Malta relations but the tags are still up at Iraq-Serbia relations and Iraq-Singapore relations. Are we to understand that these articles are to be kept, or deleted? Thanks, Skomorokh 06:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I assumed since they were crossed out, they were withdrawn. Removing the AFD tags. MBisanz ^talk 06:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, appreciate your time. Regards, Skomorokh 06:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

ps Barnstar

See my recent barnstar in the light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive, don't make yourself a tool of some well known deletionist's army of sockpuppets. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• If only we made everyone have a camera on top of their computers.... Oh well. MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I was just about to point out that that was somewhat unfair, since you acted in good faith as the closing administrator and had no more knowledge of this than HexaChord did. Anyway, you'll be distressed to hear that you're the closing administrator in a number of these discussions, so there is more coming your way down the pipeline, as we work our way through them. One such is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa vs Pretty, which I think is best taken to Deletion Review, rather than being directly re-listed. Uncle G (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    • You don't know the backstory of this. We've had discussions on this before. Discussions about closing AfDs about one day early when only a few !votes (mostly socks now we know) were there, or giving three one line delete !votes (mostly socks now we know) more weight than two keep !votes actually citing sources (which in my eyes should be "no consensus" or even "keep" rather than "delete"). That is why I think MBisanz should not close AfDs at all. But I am no admin, I may not know the game well enough. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Matthew, what are your thoughts about this? Do you think that your approach to AfD closures has made you prone to the effects of these sorts of sock puppet antics? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I really am not sure how any administrator can overcome this sort of sockpuppetry merely on closing style. The only way I would have closed these AFDs different is if I had looked at the content and put my view in place of the otherwise in good standing accounts at AFD. To be able to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa vs Pretty and say "those two deletes are socks" is something I don't think any administrator could pull off, they used different wording two days apart. Most socks are red-linked talk page, newly registered accounts. Those I can and do recognize and take into account, but something like this I don't think can be guarded against. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, I certainly did not mean to suggest that an admin could ascertain that such !votes were those of sock puppets. But what do you make of HexaChord's characterization of your approach? It's a pretty serious charge, "giving three one-line delete !votes more weight than two keep !votes actually citing sources (which in my eyes should be 'no consensus' or even 'keep' rather than 'delete')." Is that accurate? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've gone back and double checked the AFDs HexaChord and I have in common where I closed contrary to his comment, here is a sample of my results

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith's fifteenth studio album NC despite there being more deletes and HexaChord's comment that violated WP:NOHARM

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Behavior (Praxis single) I relisted based on HC's claim of new sources, he !voted more than once and even with the alleged sources, other editors felt it failed the notability threshold.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binge and Grab HC's comment failed to address the question of notability/sources.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It (MSI Singles) Discounted per WP:INTERESTING

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing Yourself to Live Fairly clear to me, group noms are accepted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obscured By Clouds Tour HC was the only person not arguing to delete this, yet I still redirected per his comments

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Empire Shall Fall All other participants supported merger

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are One (Buckethead song) HC was the only person arguing to keep

Now I've compiled a list at User:MBisanz/HC of AFDs HexaChord and myself edited. A quick scan through them does not show any with the vote count he indicates, so I would need a specific instance to better respond. MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I looked through these as well, and did not see anything along the lines of what HexaChord was suggesting, so I'm not sure if HC is referring to some other AfDs in which HC was not involved. I jumped into the discussion, perhaps impulsively and unfairly to you (I'm still reeling from the discovery of how long this sock puppetry went undetected), but also because something about HexaChord's comment rang true. Perhaps it was your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TGT (group), in which your gave some credence to the others' rationales (JamesBurns and A-Kartoffel) by closing it as "no consensus". It disturbs me that contributors who simply pass by and say "no sources" are given as much weight as those who make efforts to actually search for sources--that was the kind of thing that made me wonder if AfDs become more prone to these sorts of sock puppet antics. I also reacted a little to your comment above (and in the past) that you give weight to any "good standing account". It's tough to know just how many of those accounts, these brief-rationale-at-AfD-providers, are as-yet-undetected socks. So that's my more complete explanation of why I asked you the questions I did. :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

List of R&B musicians

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R&B musicians should not be closed as delete due to the socketpuppetry of User:JamesBurns (see List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns) who voted with puppets in this AfD. Untick (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Untick, a new discussion was started by Black Kite at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R&B musicians (2nd nomination). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

None the less

Hello, you (or, at least, the AWB bot) have been treating "none the less" (three words) as a typo, and changing it to nonetheless (one word).

Most dictionaries say it can be either. The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (ODWE), which I have always gone to when in doubt, says the three-word version is actually to be preferred (unlike "nevertheless", which is always one word).

It's a very small matter in the great scheme of things, but I think at the very least there is no need to change "none the less" when it appears as three words. Alarics (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll point it out to the devs. MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on RS queery

Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terowongan Casablanca

Might I ask that you take a look and perhaps close the AfD since the nom has witdrawn the nomination based upon improvements? Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done (Now why do I have this talk page watched? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you know what you're doing

...and have a degree in accounting, I'll run this article on accounting software by you first, but I'll be happy to try to hand it off to some Wikiproject (can you suggest one?) if you don't have an opinion: User_talk:Dank55#Notability. (Not watchlisting, you'll break my watchlist) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 2

You forgot to include in your summary of the decision that administrator Will Beback and other three users were admonished for their conduct in articles related to Prem Rawat. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.235.32 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You also forgot to post a notice in the discussion page of the Prem Rawat article and all related articles about the revert limitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2#Revert_limitations that apply to everybody, not just these that were admonished or banned. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.235.32 (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What was done was sufficient. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Please see the relevant thread, here.-- Dæd?lus ^Contribs 08:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a new sock: 207.237.61.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Could you please block it?-- Dæd?lus ^Contribs 09:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.-- Dæd?lus ^Contribs 09:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a new email.-- Dæd?lus ^Contribs 09:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Negima-related articles

I'm sorry for the incovenience, but, recently, you have deleted many Ngima or Akamatsu related articles (Specifically, the "Magic in Negima", "Shinmeiryuu" and "Items and Artifacts" ones, that I remember). While I agree with some of the reasons for deletion, I feel sorry the loss of any information, and specially information I'm interested in. I'm not asking to undo the deletion permanently, but, it isn't possible to undo it for some time, so we can move the all the articles (And their respective histories) to the Annex Wikia, and then to the appropriate Wikia? Maybe it isn't necesary even to put the articles back: I just need acess to the text of the articles and their related histories. I'm not used to Wikipedia "inner workings", and I don't know if it's even possible, but, if it is, it would be better than just "throw away" the work of many people.

Thank you for your attention.--Lord Metatron (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can email you the text of the articles and you could paste that into the negima.wikia referencing Wikipedia. It wouldn't be possible to move them directly since I am only a Wikipedia sysop and one needs to be both a Wikipedia and Wikia sysop to complete a move. Would you like them emailed? MBisanz ^talk 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. The e-mail is patriciojr13@gmail.com. But, just to make things clear. When I put them on the Wikia, they'll lack the previous version history and any templates, won't they? Just to be sure.

And thank you very much for your help!--Lord Metatron (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they will lack histories. I sent the first two, but I can't find the third article, is it under a different name? MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"List of Items and Artifacts in Negima", then. Maybe with a "!" in the end. --Lord Metatron (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Found it, all sent off. MBisanz ^talk 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

More from the pipeline

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lac Motion
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Year In The Life (EP)

I said that there were more, didn't I? ? Unfortunately, what we have here in these cases are the sockpuppetteer and just one other person. In the case of the latter discussion in particular, the other person's contribution is "nn", which is useless. I suspect that had the sockpuppetry not existed these would have been re-listed for further discussion. Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Relisted. MBisanz ^talk 19:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. More to come, I expect. ? Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Market Hero - I annotated the master list with "Sockpuppets were responsible for tipping a multiple relist to delete, looks like a no consensus close would be appropriate. Independently, Black Market Hero has been undeleted, merged, and redirected." If you concur, please re-close, and I'll notify Michig (the primary interested editor). Flatscan (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reclosed per your suggestion. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done the needful. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Grundy (song), where the sock puppet contributions may have had an effect. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punkradiocast.com Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, keep 'em coming. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You betcha. :) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Like That (song) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

India-Malta relations

Can you check if this edit of yours (which I reverted) was inadvertent, or if I missed something ? The AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India-Malta_relations. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh yes, I was closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta-Asia relations and took it as a withdrawn AFD, not as a split AFD. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That explains it. One benefit of the minor snafu was that I got to read User:Marcusmax's !vote at the Malta-Asia AFD, which I have now cited in my keep vote at the India-Malta AFD. Still swimming against the tide, but there's hope. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Article tagged for deletion

I was surpised to see an article I created on a young author (M.H.A. Menondji) was deleted. I have two additional pieces of information on this writer; the first is the title of the book she authored and that is scheduled for release on May 8, 2009 (Beyond Those Hills: an Officer and a Lady, available after May 8, ISBN-9781441485304), the second is an article recently published on an online magazine (See link http://www.jamati.com/online/books/mha-menondji-inspiring-french-beninese-author-beyond-those-hills-an-officer-and-a-lady/). I can add a stub if the deletion is cancelled.

Thank you for reconsidering!

That page was deleted by User:Jimfbleak, you would need to ask him about re-creating it. MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of MediaRing Limited

Hi,

I am the creator of the MediaRing Limited Article page. I would like to check with you, why was our page being deleted?

Hope to hear from you soon.

Thank you. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpatel72 (talk o contribs) 05:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete it, it was deleted by User:Alexf. MBisanz ^talk 05:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding Template:Cite map to the references gadget you have (RefTools)

Is it possible you could add that to the template, it would help us road guys a lot. - See Template:Cite map.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right person? I've never used RefTools or Cite map. If you give me a direct thing to copy-paste I can do it, but I have no idea about the technical end of things. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I am sorry, I sent this to the wrong person :| - My error.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gadsden State Community College

Gatoclass (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review

I was skimming ANI and I noticed a section captioned "Appeal for block reevaluation" which appears to reference one of your blocks. I don't know if anyone has advised you of the discussion, but it would probably be helpful for you to comment there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And by ANI, he means AN ;> Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal for block reevaluation. -xeno ^talk 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Brown (goaltender)

Since you didn't put a reasoning in your delete closure, I am going to ask for one now before I take the closure to DRV. As this was clearly a case of no-consensus at the very worst. -Djsasso (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Commentators disagreed over whether or not he passed WP:ATHLETE, I found the arguments that there were no sources indicating a significant professional career to be more convincing than the arguments that other similar articles exists or that sources might exist. MBisanz ^talk 21:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, just wanted to see what your opinion was since very close calls like that without a comment are just begging to be reviewed. I will be taking it to DRV since sources were actually provided, they didn't just say they might exist. -Djsasso (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mike Brown (goaltender). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Djsasso (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What bothered me was this statement by the nominator. someone who passes WP:ATHLETE must first pass WP:GNG. IFAIK this is not correct or at least there is no consensus on it. This "charge" by the nominator may have had the first 2 "delete" !voters weighing the article against WP:GNG and not considering WP:ATHLETE which is "binary" for the most part. Either the subject has competed in a fully professional league or he has not. In the case of Mike Brown, one of the keep !voters said he played in the ECHL and AHL and that both are professional leagues. I don't know much about hockey leagues so I am not sure if they are "professional" enough for WP:ATHLETE and this point wasn't discussed in the AFD. Therefore in the DRV I !voted to overturn if his professional status can be verified. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

sock/meatpuppets evading ban

MBisanz, thank you for your note at the SPI I opened. I omitted a capital 'P' in the username User:JohnklausPowell, and I've corrected the problem. Thanks again. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungary-Peru relations

I noticed that you closed this discussion as "delete." However, I feel that 6 delete !votes, followed by 3 keep !votes do not constitute consensus. AfD is not a headcount; delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, keep, keep, keep ? 6 delete with 3 keeps scattered throughout. The result should be based on the merits of the arguments presented. Generally, !votes at the end signify a change in the direction of the debate, especially if editors have researched the Internet and found new evidence for notability. In particular, the sources given by Mandsford and WilyD are sufficient to show that the subject is notable. -- King of ? ? ? ? 23:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless people come back and change their comments, I cannot read into it that they are now satisfied. In particular, one person did come back and say they were not satisfied with the sources. MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it just meant that they did not care enough to return. I doubt that all of them have actually checked and held the sources to be unreliable. -- King of ? ? ? ? 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And then we wander down the path of the admin trying to judge the content to see if it is good enough now to satisfy the earlier comments, and then people complain that admins are substituting their judgment for the community's. It's a terrible process, but it is better than all the other ones :P MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, maybe it should be relisted. While normally relists are used when there are few !votes, perhaps it would be more appropriate to WP:IAR here and give people a chance to respond. If more people support "delete" after the relist, then delete it. -- King of ? ? ? ? 05:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tried that in the past, for awhile actually, and then people kept complaining I was violating the deletion guidelines by not following WP:RELIST, it is a catch-22. MBisanz ^talk 05:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the deletion; while perhaps they were enough to verify the article's content, the sources presented by WilyD (talk · contribs) were challenged as insufficient to prove notability. -Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

New Jersay sock

Toronto20010...previous name was Tuesday2009. Same M.O as all his other socks. I would post a SPR but I'm rather busy at the moment. I'm not sure if you can do anything about it but I figured it was worth a shot since you've been involved before. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

 Blocked MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Namespace-notices styles

I just noticed your changes to MediaWiki:Editnotice-7 and {{visibility}}. You made them 80% wide and talk page brown. That goes against the current (but weak) consensus for namespace notices. So I invite you to join the latest discussion about this: Template talk:Fmbox#Requested edit.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why you deleted a PAGE !

Lastly I noticed that you deleted a page named Electrointerstitial scanner, I am finally a physician, frequently using that page to teach my students and learn about innovations in medical technologies.. What you did still incomplete until you explain me your act. Please try to answer me as soon as possible, otherwise this could train serious consequences ! You also can install EIS page at its place without prolongation of our talk. Thank you in advance for your ethical answer and explanation. Sincerely

--naseem abi shaheen (talk)

The deletion was as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electro Interstitial Scanner, when the community decided to delete the page. I will not restore it. You may contest at WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

There are new messages for you at this topic. Since we apparently have consensus for keeping this user off wiki, or rather, keeping him blocked, would you be able to extend the block lengths on his three IPs?-- Dæd?lus ^Contribs 06:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Protonk and Jeske seem to have it from the technical POV, I'll leave it to them for now. MBisanz ^talk 06:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for the offer - I'd be glad to have the tools to serve Wikipedia further. However, I'd like to give it a week or so, if that's OK with you, as I want to write and expand some mathematics articles. Best, -download | sign! 04:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Just give me a day's notice.MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! Have a nice day.  :) -download | sign! 19:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

user:yellowmonkey

if user yellowmonkey does not exist then how can it block other editor? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.55.206 (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. MBisanz ^talk 20:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Usernames on Wikipedia are case sensitive, so User:YellowMonkey may exist while User:Yellowmonkey does not. Looks like YellowMonkey has deleted his userpage. -download | sign! 20:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Criminal Harrassment/ Deleting User From Malaspina User Account

It has been brought to our attention at Vancouver Island University, formerly Malaspina University-College, Student Services Department that one of our students used our computer to edit list of terrorist incidents 2009 after a week of decay, 142.25.100.125 and 142.25.100.130. He then created an account and used it on his home computer and you have blocked him. You have violated Wikipedia rules as it states that editors cannot block an account if they are created at a different address as in this case. Not only that you have blocked the use of Vancouver Island University library staff and customers from using nearly one hundred computers. If you do not immediately unblock these accounts, and Toronto2010 that was created on our system, or we will take legal and criminal action against you and Wikipedia staff.

Doug Ross President Student Services Vancouver Island University --Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaspina Ad (talk o contribs) 15:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked this account per WP:NLT. Rodhullandemu 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On Josette's page

To this:

Buttermilk, in my time on Wikipedia (5+ years) I have seen some vicious attacks, I have made some of them myself, but I think you are probably making one of the lowliest ugliest attacks I have seen. What do you want? Lar to come to his wife's defence? Josette to dissolve into tears? For all I know, both may happen - both would be excruciatingly embarrassing to witness - as, I suspect, you are well aware! I have not even bothered to look at the edits you are so bothered about, your comments made that unnecessary. So here is some advice from a very experienced editor, who is not her husband, lover or even an sighing admirer: Grow up and shut the fuck up! Is that clear enough for you? Giano (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You responded:

I've read the above and must say I agree with Giano and Jack rather strongly. Buttermilk, I strongly urge you to stop the personal attacks, Wikipedia takes personal attacks very seriously because of the environment required for collaborative editing. If I see comments like this again, it is highly likely I will block you, so this is the only warning you will receive. MBisanz talk 05:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My comment: Do you really think this sort of hard swearing is appropriate for Wikipedia? From a neutral observer, this looks like a treat to me, or at least "upping the ante". Also Giano said "I have seen some vicious attacks, I have made some of them myself...". I certainly don't "strongly agree" with this approach. Frightening! Wallie (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It probably is not the best language, but it is a rather old conversation you cite. Giano has historically been accused of making uncivil comments, so he is certainly an expert on what qualifies as an uncivil comment on Wikipedia and I agree with his comment that Buttermilk was making an inappropriate comment. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

OK and thank. I could see the setting. From my viewpoint he was "rushing to a damsel in distress". However, I think people can put things more diplomatically. To my mind, using uncouth language is a no no on Wikipedia, no matter what the circumstances. However, I did like your response to my query. Wallie (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

New message!

21:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for archive of article "Nicholas Chan"

As per the topic, I would really appreciate it if you can assist in providing me with the archive copy of the article which was deleted. If it can be put in my userpage, I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Ncknight (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done at User:Ncknight/Nicholas Chan. MBisanz ^talk 17:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Another Jersay sock

You blocked this one for a week: same MO, Somala, Terrorist, Sri Lankan wars, etc... I've lost my will to care considering this would be is 5 puppet, but I highly despise using an IP to revert consensus-supported edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Miller (chairman)

Would you consider closing the AfD, based on the new evidence provided? thank you. Ikip (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved as the nominator, so I shouldn't close, and since the outcome looks clear-cut, it shouldn't be an issue. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussions implicitly referencing you

You have been mentioned via link at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal:_Requiring_the_closing_admin_to_say_more_than_.22The_result_was_._._.. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

CBTF Technology

Not sure what you meant to do here but it's gone to a redlink. And a re-direct when it was only the creator asking for it? Of course he thinks the matieral ought to be kept. Can you clarify? Thanks StarM 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dang, I was trying to copy a link and copied the piped link instead. Since it was a low-turnout AFD, I figured redirecting was the better compromise over deleting outright. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I get why you do it, but I hate that things can't be relisted to gain consensus rather than settling for what we have to do after one relist. Thanks StarM 00:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

One of these days I'm going to change the relist policy. It causes so much trouble for AFD commentators and closers alike. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, unless I'm looking in the wrong spot, it's only a guideline. I think it just leads to repeat noms when either party is unhappy with the close, which doesn't really meet the supposed goal of not cluttering AfD. I think AfD as a whole needs a makeover, but that's a horse of another colour entirely. StarM 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Amit Abraham

Hi, thought I would let you know that there are two articles Dr. Amit Abraham and Amit Abraham. The second one probably, got missed out becuase the AfD tag on its page links to the the AfD entry of Dr. Amit Abraham. Maybe you would like to speedy delete it? Thanks. --Deepak D'Souza 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. MBisanz ^talk 07:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth de la Porte - harpishordist - deletion by M BSantz

Dear M Bsantz

I and a great many other people were enormously distressed at the fact that you had deleted this entry in wikipedia as a "blatant breach of copyright." What copyright plerase do you believe to have been breached here?

Yours Sincerely

Dr Paul Dawson-Bowling

Elizabeth de la Porte - harpishordist - deletion by M BSantz

Dear M Bsantz

I and a great many other people were enormously distressed at the fact that you had deleted this entry in wikipedia as a "blatant breach of copyright." What copyright please do you believe to have been breached here?

Yours Sincerely

Dr Paul Dawson-Bowling --Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.126.39 (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It was copied from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Porte-Elizabeth.htm. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in on this, but you may wish to see OTRS:2752624. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if there is permission for the text, feel free to restore, but as I'm reading that ticket right now, it only gives image permission. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted file talk pages

Hi, would you please restore the deleted talk pages you've just deleted, by moving the talk to the individual Commons pages? There were very important comments (awaiting responses) left at some dozens of those. Thanks very much, Badagnani (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages with valuable discussion in question are: File talk:Brady's Leap1 7-12-08 (1).jpg File talk:Cairo Opera 1.jpg File talk:Camilo202.jpg File talk:Chirimoyalarcomuseum.jpg File talk:Concert Mysorepalace.jpg File talk:Crop Korean dessert-Patbingsu-01.jpg File talk:Crop Korean dessert-Patbingsu-02.jpg File talk:E7918-Dordoy-Bazaar-blankets.jpg File talk:FLMap-doton-Greenacres.PNG File talk:Fruits of Dracontomelon duperreanum.JPG File talk:Fusilli.jpg File talk:Gabrielenos.jpg File talk:Garam Masala new 2008-1.jpg File talk:Georgiamoon.jpg File talk:Gulo gulo 2.jpg File talk:Hkbitters.jpg File talk:Korean shaved ice-Ingredients-01.jpg File talk:Korean shaved ice-Patbingsu-01.jpg File talk:KrarAnd-I-Sitting.jpg File talk:Life48.jpg File talk:Lionel Tertis.jpg File talk:Mahmoud Guinia.jpg File talk:ManyAmari.jpg File talk:Noodle spicy ricecake.jpg File:Gaitasanabresa.jpg

Badagnani (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Restoring. MBisanz ^talk 09:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're very kind. For future "moved-to-Commons" photos I think pushing Talk page comments to Commons would be fine; in many cases they have questions awaiting responses, such as "when was this taken," "who took this," or similar questions about the photos' content or origin. Badagnani (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

All done I think. MBisanz ^talk 09:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Uploaders of photos can be very problematic, as they often don't ever answer such queries. Badagnani (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here. I believe your observation that such questions are rarely answered is correct; it also begs the question, though. If there is little likelihood of getting one's question answered on the file talk page, why not ask the question on the user talk page of the editor to whom it is directed? That would seem to me to be much more likely to result in the question being answered and, in many cases, the information relating to the image being improved. Might you consider doing this in the future? Risker (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Charles Bukowski smoking.jpg

Hi Matthew
What was the point of deleting File talk:Charles Bukowski smoking.jpg? The image exists locally, the talk page was not wholly unuseful, and it in particular it had an important history, namely the edit history of the file at its previous location.
Cheers, Amalthea 09:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing the section above I probably don't have to ask you to doublecheck your other deletions (I only had a look at the one because it was on my watchlist), and to refine the script you're using to select them. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 09:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually they were hand selected, from a list I hand reviewed at User:MBisanz/FT (You can see the bottom part I haven't finished yet), I selected very short (under 200 characters) pages and then removed those without substantive discussion, in this case an IP had overwritten the file history. I copied the file history from the old rev to the File page itself, which is the convention Commons uses. I've already done 6,000 or so over the last couple of months, so I think my visual review is pretty accurate, but I will keep an eye out for those sorts of situations. MBisanz ^talk 09:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, alright, now that you said it, I heard that you deleted a lot of them from the discussion at Template talk:Fmbox. That will make double-checking them all rather impractical, but also probably not necessary. But please keep an eye on page histories when you select them.
Thanks for cleaning the house, and Cheers, Amalthea 09:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that if the questions/comments/suggestions go unanswered, they get deleted? That doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. -xeno ^talk 16:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is ludicrously not part of CSD G6, so clearly and obviously not part of it, that it's hand to figure out what's going on in your head. Page deletions are heavy actions. There are many reasons for talk pages beyond discussion: for example, to make a note about a page for future people who might wonder about something. There are at least three problems here:

• Whether your deletions are a good idea or not, they are manifestly not covered by CSD G6;
• You failed to follow the terms of CDS G6 itself in its direction to make a clear edit history;
• You engaged in a significant controversial issue;
• You show no sign of stopping.
• I believe this is a clear abuse of administrator privileges, and you should rethink entirely what you are doing. Deleting content permanently with this kind of casual approach is entirely unacceptable in my opinion. Tb (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

imo, only talk pages created in bad faith should be deleted in this fashion. -xeno ^talk 17:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost, but not even then. CSD G6 is not for that. CSD G1, G2, G3, might be ok. But CSD G6 is not even for deleting pages created in bad faith. We have these policies for a reason. Tb (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Puzzled

Hi. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining that you have deleted the page, it's just that I can't work out why you would want to delete "File talk:HeartWhatAboutLove.jpg", (much less, why you did delete it.)
Your edit comment: "Deleted because "Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial housekeeping". using TW" is far from enlightening. (Perhaps even cryptic?)
The G6 description doesn't help much either: Technical deletions. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, deleting dated maintenance categories, or performing uncontroversial page moves.
Further: If no special tag like {{db-move}} can be used and the reason for deletion is not self-evident, a reason for deletion should be supplied, for example on the talk page or in the edit summary. From my position, "the reason for deletion is not self-evident".
So, may I bother you to explain why you deleted it? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm still puzzled as to why you deleted the page, and would be interested to understand your motivation / rationale for doing so. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My rationale was that the entire page was an IP asking two years for the source of the book and posting his phone number. Talk pages are not used to contact the source of a publication and people shouldn't post their phone numbers onwiki. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree with the motivation and intent. And now that I can see what is on the page, I also agree that the page content is inappropriate.

Because of lack of experience in this area, (aka my personal ignorance), I don't know what the best way to address this sort of issue is - deleting the page does seem to be one option, but my problem with page deletion is that it removes the page history, so non-admins have no ability to work out what happened or why. Can you tell me if there are other options for addressing this sort of issue? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

wacky deletion

Why on earth did you delete File talk:ECUSA arms.gif? The cited reasons were CSD G6. Let's see. Merging page histories? Nope. Maintenance category? Nope. Uncontroversial page move? Nope. As CSD G6 says, "If no special tag like db-move can be used and the reason for deletion is not self-evident, a reason for deletion should be supplied, for example on the talk page or in the edit summary." So let's see your edit history: "non-controversial housekeeping". Nope. So what gives? Tb (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File talk:NHHR07.png

Would you mind restoring the above link please? I was explaining why I added the base url template to the file's page.--Rockfang (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Restore 'em

(I've taken the liberty of clerking your talk page and subheaderfy'ing all these complaints) I think perhaps you should consider restoring all (and by all, I mean not just the ones people complained about) of these recently deleted file talk pages. Per my comments about, just because a 200 character good faith question/comment/suggestion went unreplied to, doesn't mean it should be summarily deleted. Also, as there is controversy (apparent from the above), G6 doesn't really apply here. regards, -xeno ^talk 18:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, ok, I asked ST47 to restore the latest batch since he can do it much faster than I can, should be done in an hour or so. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

cheers, -xeno ^talk 19:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Tb (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've replied to your invitation at my talk, with some suggestions on refining the list for easier manual review. -xeno ^talk 12:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

This is a little late, but thanks for the welcome:) I really like the Wikipedia Dept. of Fun (which I wouldn't have ever have found without your welcome). Once again, Thank you. --Danitnt (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete Category talk:Supramolecular chemistry?

Please restore this page. Why did you delete a talk page for an active category. Randomly deleting pages is very destructive to Wikipedia. You need to a the very least go through the process of requesting a deletion. M stone (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It had one comment from an IP that wasn't related to the category topic. I've recreated as an actual on-topic category page. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you fix the page in the page first instead of deleting it? Deleting pages like this is very disruptive and destructive. This is why so many content contributors become disillusioned with Wikipedia. M stone (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because off-topic test pages like that are deleted as they do not improve content. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But I don't even know what content was deleted. If you fixed it or blank the page then there would still be a history to examine. But because you deleted it I have know way of knowing what was there. Clearly you knew how to fix the problem, because you just did it. So why did you chose to delete it instead of fixing it? I suspect that you really don't understand how frustrating unjustified deletions are. M stone (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No page blanks discourages blanking, and deleting test pages does not prevent someone else from creating a useful page in the future. I just patrol new pages and fix them as best as I can with my limited time. And I have had articles of mine deleted before, so I understand that issue, but this isn't even an article or content or the discussion of content. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't keep such pages, M stone. There is no reason to keep them. Simply blanking a page should be avoided. I don't think that this is an "unjustified deletion" nor anything to get frustrated about. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No justification for deleting the page was given. The message left was "Deleted because "Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial maintenance". using TW" Therefore it was by definition a deletion without a justification. I don't think that anything in this particular case was lost, but I really have no way of telling because it was deleted. I think that deleting pages and then seeing if anyone complains is a rather destructive approach to "fixing" Wikipedia. If you don't have time to fix a page I would suggest you leave it alone instead of simply deleting it without posting a notice that there is a problem. M stone (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite the paradox you've created. "...I really have no way of telling because it was deleted." Uh, of course.... --MZMcBride (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I do concede that I have no idea when the page was created or what was on it, so it was probably completely appropriate to delete the page. However, it would be nice for me to have some way to confirm that no important discussion was lost. I am sure you can understand that this might be a frustrating situation for me. M stone (talk)

Might be better off deleting the comment and preserving any potentially useful edit history (or at least verifying there was none). Bongomatic 04:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There was none. Perhaps WP:CSD#G2 would have been somewhat clearer but there was no useful history in the page. As for "deleting pages and then seeing if anyone complains" - I doubt MBisanz even considered the possibility of complaints over such a trivial thing. Mr.Z-man 05:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Query

Hi MBisanz

I have seen your actions in a number of AfD discussions and you appear to be a rational editor/administrator acting in good faith. What is up with this AfD? Specifically, why haven't you withdrawn it or at least addressed the points made by the (unanimous) chorus of editors (including editors who are often considered deletionists by others) who disagree with the nomination?

Regards, Bongomatic 02:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

When I nommed it, it looked like a BLP1E piece, among other things not mentioning his CEO role at Digital Media/News Corp or even giving a birth date. I've seen many of these pieces for CEOs from different companies and sometimes it is just an advert-piece of a one hit wonder and sometimes it is just a poorly done stuff, so that is why I AFD'd it. And a couple of sections above someone asked why I didn't withdraw it, and the reason is that I don't like closing AFDs I start, since in this case some could argue a withdrawl isn't as strong a close as a Keep is. I agree it will be kept and that now is a decent article that actually covers all the points of his notability. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. Bongomatic 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I don't understand what you meant but I will try to look into it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.Solsticefan (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy MBisanz's Day!

YAY! Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 05:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Matt ! :) -- Tinu Cherian - 05:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I was recently thinking about this comment of mine the other day on AN/I, and I reckoned it may have come across as unnecessarily hostile. As such, I wish to say that I'm sorry if it did come across as aggressive in any way at all: it was not my intention for it to be so. Best wishes. Acalamari 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I wasn't offended, thanks for the note. MBisanz ^talk 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fandangle Page

I saw that you have previously deleted the Fandangle page for not meeting WP:BAND. I would like you to consider looking at my article of Fandangle; this is currently a sub-page, but I would like to re-create the deleted article on the band. Thanks. -- Mike |talk 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Dragon Ball films

Hi Mbisanz, what was the content of this talk page before you speedied it? I'm thinking it was a project banner (but am not sure); if so, why did you delete it? ????????!?^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was an incorrectly formatted CFD notice, I went back and added the right tag. MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I'll add the relevant project banner in a minute. ????????!?^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Green Vehicle AfD

Please explain your rationale for closing the AfD. No consensus was reached. Few of the Keep 'votes' addressed the problems. Are you recommending we overturn the Neologism guideline? Are YOU going to do the heavy lifting there? Greglocock (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Several people disagreed it was a neologism and cited external sources to show its usage. I particularly like the neologism guidelines and have used them in several of my own AFD nominations. But I cannot overturn community consensus at an AFD when closing to suit my own needs. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at those sources? The only one that defined it was a schoolbook by an anonymous author. Which was probably cut and pasted from the green vehicle article. Greglocock (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins do not evaluate the content of an AFD, the people commenting evaluate the content, closing admins evaluate the arguments made by good faith participants. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markel Hutchins

I added additional sources and information to address concerns about there being insufficient referencing and indication of notaibility. I noted this in a comment, and there has been no response from those vting to delete. I think the concerns about the article have been addressed, and ask you to reconsider the deletion. Ground Zero | t 02:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Even with the changes, no one came back to the debate to comment further, and people had returned previously to comment, without new comments from them, I can't decide that the new sources satisfy the criteria. Sorry I cannot be of more assistance. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX on Template:Vandal

Hello, I noticed that a number of months ago, you added NOINDEX to Template:Vandal (and forked it from Template:Userlinks). Do you remember why? {{vandal}} is often used on user talk pages and WP:AIV. For example, NOINDEX made its way onto my user talk page. ~a (user o talk o contribs) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I did it since the term "Vandal" has a specific connotation that "Userlinks" doesn't have. Namely one would be likely to use the term "Vandal" when negatively describing a user, where "Userlinks" would be used in generic situations. It made sense to me to NOINDEX the one that would be used negatively, while leaving the generic term intact. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that you aren't NOINDEXing the vandal, you're NOINDEXing the page on which the vandal was discussed. That's not what we want, right? ~a (user o talk o contribs) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if the vandal's username was his real life name or if he was vandalizing a BLP, then we might want to NOINDEX the page on which the discussion took place. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Relist AFD

Hi MBisanz , please kindly relist ZK_Framework_(2nd_nomination). in 2nd nomination, user Flaming Grunt voted twice. Not sure if it is fair? Would you please extend the nomination? And please review of talk page of ZK_Framework, there are many reference. But they don't participate this nomination. It's a pity that there are two published books about ZK, and it is deleted for not-notable. (talk)

It was already extended once, the guidelines discourage further relisting (see WP:RELIST), and the consensus was clear. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus isn't clear to me, Flaming Grunt voted twice, or the result should be equal. Is is fair? 03:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote, and as I noted in my close, I was aware he commented twice. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any clear evidence to delete ZK because of not-notability? This shall be a misunderstanding. ZK is a famous Ajax framework which is always listed the most active project over the past two years on sourceforge.net, the biggest open source hostting website. There are two published books, ZK - Ajax without JavaScript, and ZK Developer's Guide. Simply google ZK, and ZK is listed the most relevant item. Robbiecheng (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

More notable reference could be found

1. ZK and Agile at TheServerSide
2. The ZK Framework at Dr.Dobb's Poral
3. ZK - AJAX without the JavaScript at IBM Developer's Works
4. Ajax with the ZK Framework at deverloper.com
5. ZK Ajax Java Web Framework: Ajax with no Javascript at infoQ.com Robbiecheng (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the consensus stands, you may wish to seek WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 07:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been listed at DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. MBisanz ^talk 08:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is DRV is wrong approach? I should try WP:Requests for undeletion first? I am not sure if the consensus stand? Less than 10 users express their opinions, and the article is deleted? The reason sounds weak to me, and please read those references. Thanks. Robbiecheng (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Requests for undeletion is another name for WP:DRV, so it is fine to take it there. However, 10 comments is a large number at AFD and closing admins judge the comments, not the content or sources. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

San Diego...

...hasn't been edited in two days, and has had good faith edits by two unique IPs in the last ten. I don't think an indefinite semi is warranted here. -xeno ^talk 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oopsie, I was shooting for 72 hours. Fixing. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Darn, you beat me to fixing it, leaving at your settings. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you had gone offline. With no edits in 2 days, I still wouldn't see the point. -xeno ^talk 02:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia-Peru relations

only 2 people actually said merge, the keep arguments were mainly wait for outcome of centralized discussion rather than addressing notability. so why the decision to redirect? LibStar (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Weighing all the comments, it could have been a delete, but in light of WP:PRESERVE and the redirect suggested by Martin are a cheap compromise. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Thanks! :) -- Luk ^talk 12:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:FloNight#User:Jack_Merridew_bot -- Rlevse o Talk o 13:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to you (MBisanz) there. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Churchill College Junior Common Room

How was the result a redirect? It was clear that the consensus was to keep it. Only one person wanted to redirect this! --Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWebbie (talk o contribs) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Churchill College Junior Common Room was very clear against keeping. MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie

Instead of merging, Kasaalan instead moved it to yet another new title. Enigma^msg 16:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirected. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to another title, because you redirected it. For merging the content into main page, first we need an agreement on main page editors, yet most of the away currently. I took MBisanz's own and the deletion review admin's advice, created a new page called Public reactions to Rachel Corrie's death, added critizising cartoons of Rachel Corrie, along with Political Rections, and documentaries on her. He asked for a deletion of the whole page with its content, without even bothering any merge or reading any part of the article, therefore trying trashing weeks of hard work, although I warned him beforehand. He didn't even bothered to discuss it on the main page, or in any other relevant page. I put a warning on main page's discussion as a warning for other main page editors. Without a collaborated work any merge into main page will not be right. On the other hand, I know this is a strict reply for my insist on Irgun's actions adding to the relevant pages, but he is acting POV and biased, and most of all as a reply to my edits in other pages. Now what should I do exactly. You advised creating new page in the first place, I took your advice created new page with relevant content, now you are redirecting it, so will you review your decision. Also can you please read the content this time before a judgement, as I said before we have a length issue in main page. He has no intention on reading the article or improving it, he just tries to revenge it. Kasaalan (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to retain an article on that topic, the re-written version must pass DRV, your removal of the merge tag without actually merging the content was improper. All the content is still there under the redirect and can be merged when consensus is reached at the article as to how it should be done. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So explain me what steps I should take first. I removed the tag because I created a new page considering the critizes on deletion review along with the admin's advise and some other user's support, therefore revising the page accordingly. And only after the attempts of the above user-admin, that acts on revenge. You and the deletion review admin, along with various other users including dedicated page editors, advised me to create a new page that contains all the public reactions, therefore I did it, considering that solved the case, so what part is improper I am not sure. Also can you please fully read the page this time, review the notability of its content, measure its length before reviewing your decision on merge, so you can clearly understand, merging means over 100 KB length, where wiki guidelines advises us to create some sub pages in the first place. And for the sake of readability and on consensus we created the page based on notable sources. There is nothing POV in the page, the content is notable and deserves its own title, and still in progress Kasaalan (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to put the new page at deletion review for the community to review it and approve its inclusion. MBisanz ^talk 18:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I will do that, thanks. But will you read the article before voting. Because I followed your advise, created the page accordingly, yet you deleted the article. If you remember the first deletion vote was in favor of merging into Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie's death page, yet you verdict as merging back into main page. And since you say it is not about the votes, your decision is important. Because if you don't read the case, you will verdict the same. So will you examine the main page and relevant content this time. Also is there a time limitation for deletion review, since most of our editors possibly away. Kasaalan (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I probably won't comment at the DRV extensively as it is outside my topic area and as a closing admin, I only judge the arguments others make at the AFD debate, not the actual content. See my philosophy at User:MBisanz/AfD, which I based off the deletion guide for admins. MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment See this. Enigma^msg 20:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked for opinions of a number of people that may be interested in the article, for the most part our main page editors, and project editors, so is there any hidden thing involved in publicly available wikipedia. If you really want to know, I even posted a link to the admin's talk page that closes the deletion review, likewise I posted here at closing admin's page. Is there any info that I tried to hide and you revealed. The last time I asked for a deletion review, only 2 of the page editors were voted since most are taking wiki-breaks, so I am trying to draw other people's attention by even posting on their user pages. I already posted relevant links in the Rachel Corrie main discussion page, and project pages, that are publicly available. I asked people's opinion, not asked them being POV. Because some deletion review voters even vote without reading the main article. Kasaalan (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you bother to look at my user discussion page, you can clearly understand my approach to the topic.

Very much appreciated, my motive is letting editors know about the voting beforehand. Since I created a deletion review, yet most of our dedicated page editors not voted, it turned on a contrary base. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_CorrieWikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_16 Most users don't even read before they vote, and on behalf of their political views. So if you please have a look to the articles first. Last revision copy of the article is available for your review.

Closing admin clearly stated earlier that his decisions not made by quantities, but as he posted his policies above, he considers the dedicated page editor's ideas primarily, and other editors might convince him better. Did you even read the discussions about the deletion review, or is this only some kind of personal revenge in the closing admin's discussion page. Kasaalan (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please tone it down Kasaalan, we are all here to make an encyclopedia and alleging bad faith about Enigma who is only trying to help is not appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 23:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As you request, I won't accuse. Yet that link to my user talk pages, has a silent but a very heavy claim, that I had to answer clearly and publicly, or it would show me as POV or biased somehow. I was trying to gather more relevant editor's attention to the matter. Because, I don't want to discuss another deletion review, with voters that are not familiar to the article. Some voters approaching to the topic differently since it has a political tune, and some other even don't care its content or references at all, yet for wikiguidelines it is not different than Ford Mustang, and deserves its subtitles likewise. I will try to build a better case with other main page editors, so that you can reconsider your decision. Kasaalan (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another editor pointed me there was a rule that might be against posting a post like this in various user's discussion pages. I will try to read relevant guidelines first. Yet I do it in a public open way in discussion pages, that any editor from any party who is relevant to the article can also aware of the discussion, along with some user talk pages of the editors to draw attention. But without project and main page editor's no clear judgement is possible, shouldn't I let others know the discussion. Kasaalan (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, MBisanz, I hope you don't mind me intervening here. I closed the DRV, so Kasaalan asked me for advice on what to do. After reading the AfD and DRV, I advised him to create a new article which met the AfD concerns about POV. After reading your original discussion with him, where I noted that you had already given him the same advice. He then went and restored the article, but he also added some negative material to the article to balance it out. To my eyes, that would qualify as a substantial enough change that DRV would not be necessary, the new version should probably be nominated for AfD. I've been under the general impression that if an article is substantially changed, then it can be re-created without having to go through DRV, although of course the new version could be nominated for AfD at any time. Do you object to another AfD?--Aervanath (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, ok, do drop a word for Ricky, the original AFD nominator, as he is probably in the best position to decide if he wants to re-nom the new article. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Aervanath, the article was in editing progress actually, yes I added the political statements of the USA Parliament members, since it would contain the public reactions, and after main page editors work on the article, it would be neutral anyway. Why did you take my implementations negatively. Also, After such a tragic death, you shouldn't expect much criticizing comments anyway, even the IDF officers were not blaming her much. Rachel_Corrie#Reaction. You can easily see, I added the criticizing cartoons calling her blatantly "stupid" in the text under artistic tributes, as the opposing editors suggested in deletion review. Before the user redirected the content into the main page, actually I stopped editing the page. I undoed his redirect, explaining a merge should be done before any redirect should take place, which is highly time consuming and requires main page editors' consent and agreement, and maybe he should do the merge if he likes to redirect into main page that much. He then said, that I should have done it already since 1 months passed of the verdict. Actually much less time passed, since we have also took a deletion review. So I moved the page, began adding relevant content as suggested, removed AFD tag. Yet while I was still implementing the other politic comments from various parties, and reactions, the page is closed even before I completed my work, and publish a link on main page, so the work was still in progress. Maybe I shouldn't move but create a new page, but I consider that might also taken negatively, so I publicly stated on main discussion page that I am creating a new public reactions page. Yet I would take at least 1 day to improve it, before other editors also could edit and the page fill its title fully. Yet, that is why I came up with the actions having reprisal character, before I even finish the work on the page and publicly post its new content and link, the user tracked my edits urgently, and tried to shut it without bothering to discuss me first. Kasaalan (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to restore the article as modified and then let the original Afd nom know so he can see if he wants to re-nom. Thanks, MBisanz.--Aervanath (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

An article that closed as merged has instead grown by another 10k or so bytes. No, this is not enough of a change to impress me. It's clear from this and this that he has no intent on removing extraneous information and applying a proper summary style. Besides the discussion was closed on March 22nd, and it wasn't until a month later he decides to rename and remove the heading. It's clear this wasn't a new article but keeping the old one. Your choice, if you want to enforce the merge option or I'll list it again. It may survive then fine or people may take the prior decision seriously. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you will probably need to re-AFD it at this point. MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The user redirected public reactions to main page. So what should I do next. Re-afd or re-deletionreview. Kasaalan (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also we should also take opinions of dedicated page editors from different sides. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie Tiamut and untwirl that voted at deletion discussion were 2 of them. I will try getting their opinions on the matter again. But should I ask them to state their opinions here, on main article's discussion page, or on deletion review page.

I am not trying to impress, you or anyone particularly, just trying to improve the article. Since you haven't even contributed much to the main article, actually I am not sure that you have much info on the issue anyway. Of course I am adding info, that is the whole point of a sub article, adding info that is notable, yet better not be on the main article page. The whole point was keeping the article, and widening its scope with other public reactions including political reactions. That was the majority of votes in the deletion discussion anyway. I made a proper statement in the main article's discussion page trying to explain the situation. I am not sure why I should summarize the article, before even gathering all the info needed, just because you say so. I am trying to gather info first, and then decide with other main page editors, what to be kept and what to be deleted with consensus if they willing to help. By the way, the info I added, is notable, yet placing them to main page is not possible due to length issues. Wikifying them is another thing, and requires more collaborative work and discussion among main page editors, and only if they help we may accomplish that. Kasaalan (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said at the beginning, running it through DRV will get a thumbs up or down on the changes and decide what should be done. Otherwise there will just be the continuing reverting that is linked above. Best to settle it once and for all, formally. MBisanz ^talk 21:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What, MBisanz, are you suggesting another round through DRV, past Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 16? At what point do we get actual closure? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

He claims he re-wrote it and won't listen to you or Engimaman saying it isn't different. A DRV will at least prove this new avenue of content is unacceptable, and suspect will result in WP:AN or WP:RFC if he pushes the issue a third time. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that another DRV is the way to go, although that's a little out of the ordinary. I would also add that I doubt that will be the end of this, but I hope I'm wrong... Enigma^msg 04:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Estonia-Kazakhstan relations

I've merged the "content" (such as it was) to foreign relations of estonia. Not sure what the next step is for a merger. Toss up a redirect or do delete the page now?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Figured it out. Never mind. THanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

I saw you reading this (LINK REMOVED) Wikipedia Review thread. I wanted to let you know this specific post is a lie. Please see User_talk:Dtobias#Wikipedia_Review_thread and User talk:Naerii#Wikipedia_Review_thread. Somey is lying about me being a woman. Do not believe him. I am, legally, a minor. Jonas Rand 68.96.209.19 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like advertising a thread to get everybody and their brother to check it out!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, since I have my userspace google-dexed I don't like having WR links in, and I really don't care what they are saying over there. MBisanz ^talk 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. You are one of the Badsites people, I'm not interested. Jonas Rand --68.96.209.19 (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, if I was one of the Badsites people, I wouldn't have an account at WR, I just don't like external linkspam in my talk archives after one of the links I had was spamblacklisted and messed up my archives. MBisanz ^talk 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize. I thought that I should inform you, though. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.209.19 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Inbox

I know some people have Wiki email accounts they don't check as regularly so I'm just letting you know, in case you didn't already, that I have replied. Your email was a pleasant addition to my inbox. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I saw it. Will get back to you later tonight. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no rush. I'm off to bed so won't be reading it tonight anyway. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent AfD results

I don't understand why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia-Mongolia relations as delete, while closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia-Peru relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia-Kazakhstan relations (and many others) as merge. Could you atleast undelete Estonia-Mongolia relations and make it as a redirect like you did with the other two articles, so the content can be merged? I or someone else will get around to doing the merge eventually, as time permits. There is potential for future development in the relationship and there are past cultural connections between the two countries. Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than outright deletion [4]. Re-directs are cheap. Thanks Martintg (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did the redirect, please don't use it though to slip the article back in when no one is looking as someone else did a few sections above on this page. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I plan to create a section on bilateral relations within Foreign relations of Estonia using this content when I get around to it. Cheers. Martintg (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was just going ask what happened. I agree (although I made a half-hearted attempt to salvage the article) that Estonia-Mongolia relations was a bit of a stretch. Not going to dispute the decision. I couldn't figure out why restored "Estonia-Mongolia relations" (17 revisions restored) showed up in my watchlist, but when I clicked I saw Foreign relations of Estonia with no material I recognized. The mystery is solved. Maybe there is something that can be used, Martintg, but my guess is that the first priorities will be Russia, Finland, Sweden, Germany etc., with Mongolia a long way down the list. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On that theme, could I ask about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan-Croatia relations? None of the three "keep" votes even attempted to address the notability of the article, instead pointing to a discussion elsewhere as a reason for keeping. Shouldn't votes address the articles at hand, rather than extraneous issues? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if the Keep comments were weak comments, there are many people active in this area and there was a lack strong deletion comments. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

UP:GPS

I had created UP:GPS for experimental purpose and can be deleted anytime. Along with UP:GPS, I had created UP:GPS/S and many more with the start name for my subpages. You are most welcome to delete them anytime.I apologize for creating such experimental pages. Srinivas G Phani (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, thanks for the heads up. MBisanz ^talk 05:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your message was rudely deleted

I see that QG has removed your notice. I discovered that when I finished my warning to him for violating BRD. He has a habit of doing this, IOW ignoring others and just barging on. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

He can remove it if he desires to. MBisanz ^talk 05:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. He's done the same with mine. Now we'll just have to see if he heeds the messages or not. Reading and heeding are two different things! The one can be IDHT and combative, and the other collaborative. I have no intention of reverting him again, since I rarely even get in this situation. But QG needs watching for this type of thing. It's a common tactic of his. If he follows the advice to participate in the discussion, per BRD, then we'll possibly see a peaceful solution. Then again it might still end up in him stonewalling and more IDHT circular discussions with him. I will likely not participate. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Matt

You're a braver man than I Gunga Din, for taking on the AfD closes of the bilateral relations articles :) - Good work. You missed a template here (not surprising as someone moved the article twice during the AfD) and the AfD close template ended up on the redirect, I fixed it here. Just FYI, I think its all sorted - hope that was cool. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you fixed it. The student has now surpassed the master. :) MBisanz ^talk 07:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

<bows> (sound of Gong striking) ah so desu ka! Paxse (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFA

Thanks, I have accepted and replied to the questions, but I haven't transcluded it yet. It is the bank holiday weekend where I am and I won't be around (i.e. don't have internet) to answer optional questions from about Saturday 0:00 UTC until Monday 15:00 UTC. I'm happy for it to go up now if you think it should, but I wondered if it should wait until I can commit to be on Wiki each day for the entire duration of the RfA (i.e. on Monday). Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, wait as long as you need to. MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:RfBAG

Thanks for the kind words and nomination.

-- Tinu Cherian - 11:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

) smiled back :P .. Just looking out how the BAG norm turned out. Happy to see people have confidence in me -- Tinu Cherian - 18:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The boilerplate told me to...

So I'm just letting you know I've accepted your nomination, though I haven't actually posted as such yet. I'll be working on that in the next few minutes. ????????!?^{(Dinoguy1000)} 15:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I guess I'm ready for an RfA. If you're still interested in nominating me, please feel free to go ahead. GT5162 has also offered to nominate me, so it might turn out to be a co-nomination. Thanks again! -download | sign! 19:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia-Morocco relations

Could you undelete Estonia-Morocco relations and make it as a redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia like you did with the other similar articles, so the content can be merged? I or someone else will get around to doing the merge eventually, as time permits. There is potential for future development in the relationship given both have a common interest in oil shale development. Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than outright deletion [5]. Re-directs are cheap. Thanks again. Martintg (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper logos

Hello, MBisanz. You marked a file File:MinnPost.jpg for movement to the commons commons:Category:Textlogos. Why move this one and not File:Washington Post logo.png and File:Startribune.png? Any newspaper logo in a certain font could be trademarked. I see no reason to think MinnPost isn't. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that is more because we have 70,000 logos and I'm one editor. If you read Wikipedia:Public_domain#Fonts and commons:Template:PD-textlogo, I think you will agree the MinnPost image is certainly PD and the others are almost certainly PD. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I realize a font can't be copyrighted. But I would worry about saying all of these are PD. A string of chars in a font could be unique and is used that way. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, that is why the template license should be commons:Template:PD-textlogo, not commons:Template:PD-text. A mere proper noun and a mere font do not make a copyright. This was one of the things I struggled with starting at Commons that something like File:Texas-Tech-University-logo.png could be free. If you are really concerned, we could tag the enwiki copy of the logos with {{KeepLocal}}. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

They won't make a copyright but they can make a trademark. MinnPost has none per se (no TM) but everywhere their name appears (in print, on T-shirts for example) it is always in this font. Also it is very hard--takes an expert--to tell when a logo has been drawn by hand from a font and, often, kerned (kerning takes like maybe a decade to learn). So yeah I think your idea is a good one to say keep local. I think the Washington Post and certainly someone like Time magazine might object. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, trademark you say, we have a template for that commons:Template:Trademark; for whatever reason, the WMF considers Trademarking something to not restrict its use, so the content is considered free. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I am not in the mood to either argue this point (out of ideas at the moment) nor do I wish to see everyone's logos given away. But if that template protects the owner's rights, that would be more than great. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Future Albums Do fall under crystal deletion policy

As soon as the album is in production is is no longer speculitive but imminent and more like the 2012 olympics then the 2030 henry (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC) murder was the case gucci mane album

Rachel Corrie

Have a good break but if you're crazy enough to want to join us, I decided to go with a second AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop#Additional Questions from Arbitrators

Just a note that there is a question for you in the above case. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

After seeing you are on break I sent an email. KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

hope all is ok StarM 02:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion?

Hello,

Just created a page for the Playboy TV show 69 Sexy Things 2 Do Before You Die and it got tagged for speedy deletion. I tried to write it as straight-forward as possible. Can you let me know how I can edit it to make it acceptable?

Thanks (~~) --Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepolekim (talk o contribs) 21:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Re.: Deleted article

I take it you won't see this until after the break, but just a note: An article listed under the name of a regional writer ("E.J.W.") has been deleted. That's OK by me. Judging from what is left of the discussion concerning it, I take it the assumption was that it was autobiography. It was not. The author was someone I know who misguidedly thought to be paying a compliment. The person named in the title of that article happens to be a very private person these days and wholly disapproves of public exposure related to article, title, or, now, author of deleted article. (I also completely reject his editing "contributions" to the article on Rochester NY.) I am also posting to LtPowers who made the autobiography charge explicit, and ccwaters, who also appear to have been involved in this process. Thank you. Ewnnrj (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User

Would you have another look at User:72.199.110.160. More mass edits on Ayn rand and Objectivist articles. More refusals to engage on the talk pages (no posts there at all), more and more SHOUTING in long edit summaries. The behaviour is encouraging edit warring --Snowded (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have been involved with Peter Damian in the past and would feel uncomfortable acting on those articles, you should probably ask at WP:AE. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Peter is always interesting and I got him involved in the Rand pages some months ago - they needed editors able to take on her followers so a degree of dogged persistence is needed! Looks like someone else has picked it up though and its a thread at ANI so I have hopes. --Snowded (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Images

Hi. Could you comment at File talk:BLP Spec Warn.svg please? I'm wondering whether this needs to be protected anymore? There's also File:BLP Spec Sanction.svg. Thanks, -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that can probably be unprotected now. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:MBisanz/CT

Please cleanup this subpage so that it is not listed in encyclopedic, or encyclopedia maintenance categories. Basically that page should have not categories that it is included in. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Originally there were no categories, people have been busy at work it seems. I've gone and hidden it and will use a prior version for my future work. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Cherry Springs State Park

Orphaned non-free media (File:Wakooz def.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Wakooz def.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I undid my withdrawal. Toddst1 (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement on dates

Greetings, fellow BAGger! FYI, an Arbcom decision will soon be made in which the BAG will likely be prominently mentioned. I've constructed a draft consensus statement at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group/Draft consensus statement on date delinking to assist the ArbCom. If you could indicate whether or not you approve of the various statements there, it would be very helpful. All the best, - Quadell ^(talk) 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for DataObjects.Net

An editor has asked for a deletion review of DataObjects.Net. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alexyakunin (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Mcroll'd

I have nominated Mcroll'd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat o ^{(Many otters o One bat o One hammer)} 16:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

John Bot II Image Moving

File:NMDP name blue square small.jpg has been converted to a SVG by me. The original image should not be moved, the SVG should. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Connormah (talk o contribs) 02:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for converting it. Commons doesn't mind hosting both though, so we can move both over. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to your feedback

Hi,

My apologies for making spelling changes to comments.

I arrived on those pages after a Google search for common misspellings and I should have paid closer attention to the Wikipedia guidelines.

From this point forward, I'll use the "-TALK" option in my Google searches to specifically exclude those pages to help prevent that action.

Thank you for your help in educating me on this topic.

--Lroomberg (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusation

I have only just discovered that an editor --Akhilleus (talk) accused me of sock-puppetry. I think this is a disgrace and an attack on my character. Couldn't someone have had the decency to even tell me??? I had to find out by accident.

Hell am I angry about this. You blocked two people's accounts because of an unhappy puppy. And you can even tell that the accounts had nothing to do with me, so why block them? Just because this disgruntled editor who lacks the ability to put a coherent case whinges?

How many other accounts do you routinely block because of this sort of crap? Sorry about this message, but the affair is disgraceful. -- spin^control 19:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked one account that I unblocked when new evidence was brought to light. About a dozen sockpuppet cases are processed in this manner daily by about a dozen clerks. Nixeagle blocked the other account so it is best to address that with him. MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

Can you tell me what sort of action I can take against this --Akhilleus? -- spin^control 19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

First stop is his talk page, second stop is WT:SPI, third stop is WP:AN, fourth stop is WP:RFC/ADMIN, and fifth stop is WP:A/R. MBisanz ^talk 19:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the fast response. Best. -- spin^control 19:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Further issue. Chasing up one of the suspended people I came across:

I've just noticed that I've been suspended from Editing for allegedly being a sock-puppet. I was never notified of the suspension. I emailed the suspending Administrator but his talk page says he is on vacation until 6-1-09. What do I need to do to remove the suspension? JoeWallack

Can you do something about this, or is that up to Nixeagle (who it seems has unblocked the other account)? -- spin^control 20:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I unblocked him a couple hours ago. MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've done my duty there. Thanks, once again. -- spin^control 20:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but I'm a) really not sure I can take on the added responsibility right now (I'm going through some family issues) and b) I'm really not sure how I feel about providing identifying information, even if it is to the Foundation. I need some time to think about it. Thanks again--if I do decide to sign up, I'll let you know. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the note. MBisanz ^talk 21:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Hi! Can I just ask. Do you really feel this was necessary? If you would be willing to unprotect it then I'll be happy to keep an eye open for any vandalism and revert it. Regards, -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

More of a preference given the level of vandalism I've been the target of. I'd like to leave it protected, and since there are 2,000+ other userpages also full protected [6], I don't think it is that big of a deal. Your thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 16:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd find that most of those are blocked or retired editors. I don't think it is common for active editors to have their userpage fully protected. Looking at the revision history, there doesn't seem to be a lot of recent vandalism. I don't feel that strongly about it, but it does seem to go against the spirit of the wiki and WP:OWN. -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked it down for now, but if [7] starts up, I'll be tweaking it back up. MBisanz ^talk 14:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated issue, would you mind not deleting AfC submissions, such as this one? We generally prefer to archive them as a record of the project's activity. They might also be useful in case someone else comes along later and can improve the submission. They should have the prefix Articles for creation but occasionally they get put in other places ... Thanks! -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It would appear the automated checker at Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages has a fault in it. I'll be complaining to someone. MBisanz ^talk 14:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone put the page in the wrong place (i.e., "Wikipedia talk:My Southampton"). There's even a grace period of a week I believe to try to prevent such things from being marked for deletion. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, ok thanks for the note. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Help for template

Hello, I've seen your name on the project template and I permis myself to ask you help: I've just created a new portal Portal:Lyon and I would like to create the templates for the subways, trams, bus. They already exist on the french wikipedia of Lyon metro for example. would you accept to help me ? Thank you Lulu97417 (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Does Template:Lyon transport work for you? MBisanz ^talk 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern Earth entry (journals)

Hello Just noticed that the entry for the journal I edit (Northern Earth), and which has been going strong since 1979, has been deleted, so I wondered why? The last time I looked, there was nothing offensive on it, just a description of the magazine as we wrote it, so I'm hoping no one's vandalised it since!

I surely hope it can be restored, but please let me know your reasons for deleting it in case there's anything we can do to prevent it happening again.

Thanks for your time - John NE-Editor (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ps this is the first time I've emailed into Wikipedia, and I confess the guidelines baffled me somewhat, so please excuse and tell me of anything I've done wrong! Thanks.

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Earth, where people felt the journal did not have enough coverage in external sources. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

List of LSAT Instruction Providers

Hi. You've requested deletion of List of LSAT Instruction Providers. You claim that it violates WP:NOTDIR. I don't see how. I've asked you to explain this assertion, but you apparently refuse to do so. I find this rather rude.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a list of all providers of a commercial service which I feel violates the "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." part of WP:NOTDIR. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for being more specific. However, I am still confused. If Wikipedia is not a yellow pages, then why does it contain this List_of_asset_management_firms, this List_of_South_Korean_retailers, this List of restaurant chains in the United States and many other lists of businesses categorized in [8] or [9]?? There does not appear to be any prohibition on lists of "providers of a commercial service". So there seems to be a problem with capricious enforcement of Wikipedia's rules. --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that there are very few notable services and they could be covered in a category or in the main article, a list of mainly external links is not appropriate. Those other lists you link to are not the same style as the list in question. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? Did you look at List_of_South_Korean_retailers? It looks like the same style to me. --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There are about 30+ links there, all to other Wikipedia articles. There are only two or three links on the LSAT list to other Wikipedia articles. MBisanz ^talk 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look more closely, you will see that most of the links are to articles that don't exist. So... ?!?!? --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

AMiB RFAr

How was confidential information revealed to you? Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Emailed per request. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Per your email (for the record more than anything), it is very clear that neither you nor any checkuser violated the privacy policy in letter or spirit. Thank you for humoring my long-standing paranoia. Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Hkpclogo.jpg

I apologize for not knowing the relevant status, please add the following template if it's proven to be genuine.zh:Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 or zh:Template:GFDL. Sorry for my pool english.regards,--Azeybs (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your presence is cordially requested

On the MoS talk page. Please explain to what edit war your request refers. Where it says "Please insert subject of dispute," I'd be much obliged if you'd do the honors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello can be so kind to give me the template for that wikipedia signpost userbox? I tried to get the template by hitting "edit page" and copying from your user page to mine, but It gives me {{User:MBisanz/UBX}} and nothing else, and I went to {{User:MBisanz/UBX}} and couldn't find anything on the page, so do you mind lending me the template for that userbox? KMFDM FAN (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Try {{user Signpost}}. MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Thanks for the invite, but I think I'll decline for now. I currently have too much going on here (plus the requests for Commons) to take on OTRS as well. Hopefully as some of my tasks here are completed, I'll take you up on the offer later. I appreciate you taking the time to add the OTRS permissions for the images I uploaded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk o contrib) 18:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

terrorist article sock

Patty wack (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is Jersay (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)?

See this. - CobaltBlueTony(TM) _talk 12:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, you linked me to a changing diff based on the latest revision to your page. Which diff did you mean? MBisanz ^talk 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I HATE that... here, that should do it. - CobaltBlueTony(TM) _talk 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks the same to me. Suggesting an indef block. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GATA

Hi. I don't think you should have deleted the GATA page. "Fringe" is a matter for opinion, but is

http://www.stockhouse.com/Columnists/2009/June/1/Raise-the-caution-flags-for-gold,-silver--Got-Gold

fringe? The GATA site is poorly covered by the mainstream media, but that's not an excuse for Wikipedia to ape them and also do a shitty job. If you have to look at one part of the GATA page for proof they're right (since that proof abounds) take a look at what Barrick Gold admitted in court about wanting Sovereign Immunity because they were working on behalf of Central Banks, just as GATA had alleged for years. If these people were "loons," they'd have gone away by now. They're not, so they haven't. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.3.239 (talk o contribs)

I'm sorry you feel that way, please see WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 18:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

deleting file without warning

Can you please explain why file File talk:Bobbyhutcherson-joelocke-072007.jpg was suddenly deleted without warning? Can you please provide logical history. This is annoying - the file was used on various pages. --natz (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The page was a meaingless page created by an IP that didn't have to do with the image. It was not the file page which is still at File:Bobbyhutcherson-joelocke-072007.jpg. MBisanz ^talk 20:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of physics article

A couple of days ago you deleted a page I created, without warning. I'm just really confused as to why this was done. The page had been scoured through by mathematicians and scientists on wikipedia many times and there had only ever been small issues with the article (such as a mistake in one of the equations by me and the wrong date in one of the attributed journals). The sudden deletion has obviously confused me a bit, and I would like to know how the conclusion of "hoax" was reached, on a page with journal and published scientific paper backing. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Anterior1 (talk o contribs) 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Black Market Hero page

I was just wondering why this article was deleted as it is for an active band that is currently working on an album. The page will just end up recreated so what was the point in deleting it? --Mikebustraan (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It still existed last I handled it, User:Michig was working on it. MBisanz ^talk 14:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

New Jersay sock

User:Patty wack has been vandalizing List of terrorist incidents, 2009 for the past month now. I'm 100% certain this user is another sock of User:Jersay: Patty wack, Somalia, Blue Jays, Terrorist incidents, banned Tuesday2009, same history, Jersay contrib. I know he'll just make a new account after I submit a sock report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Sweden

Can you please explain why you deleted File talk:Flag of Sweden.svg? That page contained valuable discussion on the sources for creating a correct reproduction of the flag (dimensions, color accuracy, etc). It is now no longer possible to follow the reasoning for the file edits in the file history section, which is essential to further improve the file. Please reconsider your decision. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiklas (talk o contribs) 12:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the version I deleted was

  A blue flag that has a yellow vertical line on it  and dezire wood wrote this  

There is an older version that references actual measurements, I'll restore that version. MBisanz ^talk 12:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast! Thanks. Wiklas (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep nagging about this. I noticed you restored a version from August 30, 2008 with one line of talk. Could you try finding a version after my last edit of the file on February 3, 2009? I remember there were contributions from several people, and I added my own. Alternatively, just inform me where I should go to request earlier version of discussion pages. After all, you only cleaned up some junk so you shouldn't have to deal with this. Thanks again! Wiklas (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there aren't any other contributions after that date. Also, you have never edited that page, unless you edited it under an IP. Could you have it confused with a different page? MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Apparently this Wikipedia page comes from Wikimedia. The discussion there is intact. My mistake, I'm very sorry for causing you trouble. Wiklas (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Feel free to ask me anything, anytime. MBisanz ^talk 13:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

High Reaches Weyr

Hello! I was just about to comment in this one. Anyway, might you reconsider allowing for a history undeletion (to see if anything can be merged) and redirect to Weyr, which was recently kept? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed you a copy of the final version. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Equinox Festival page

Hello, you formerly deleted the Equinox Festival page as lacking in notability when hundreds of sites came up with references to the festival. At this point the festival has generated an enormous amount of print and web based press including Timeout London, The Wire, Fortean Times, Reality Sandwich and many many others. Is it possible to reinstate this page? Please let me know. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.191.253 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equinox Festival was clear, you would need to go to WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Orly.jpg

Hope you don't mind but I just un-deleted the talk page. It's linked from the top of the Talk:O RLY? page. The page gets several questions as to why the image doesn't exist and it's useful to be able to link to that discussion. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I went ahead an added a template to keep it from getting caught in the database report. MBisanz ^talk 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

THanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Dank/Review

I posted a question for ya. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS image on zh.wp

Please be careful next time and don't change the license of a copyrighted image into GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0. We received a complaint email on OTRS from the Hong Kong government's Hong Kong Productivity Council (which is what that copyrighted image used on its article) questioning why you did that. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

He may not know the difference in licensing, but you do! Other than US government, I don't believe any other government departments' logo are free-use. And certainly none will license it as GFDL/CC-BY-SA. Common sense tells us he mixed it up, which I have now explained it to him that the licensing he first used was correct (non-free logo). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bots

I saw that your on BAG and would like to create a bot please respond on my talk page. NoRmIaD (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Ayacon page

Hi, I think you should reconsider deleting the Ayacon wikipedia page. It is the largest anime and manga convention in the United Kingdom and it has been run on several different years, gathering quite a history and a special place in the hearts of UK anime and manga fans. If you search for it on Wikipedia you will see that it is mentioned in four other articles and it has 46,300 hits on google. I think there should be an article on it, seeing as over a thousand people will attend this Summer's iteration of the festival and many people may be interested in the history of the convention. Certainly the reason you gave for deletion (technical deletion) seems unjust. Note that the "sister" convention of Ayacon, Amecon, still has a wiki page and it is certainly no less notable.137.205.34.108 (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted by User:Ryulong, I merely deleted the broken redirect. MBisanz ^talk 09:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks 137.205.34.108 (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Barlow's law

Matthew, I added a new reference and further info about the historical significance of Barlow's law, so I deleted the remaining tags. Please take a look and let me know if you think something is still insufficiently explained or supported. Thanks, Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! --Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

- Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How do I indicate I have written a requested article?

Being a Brahms enthusiast, I thought I would tackle some of the requested articles on his compositions (see Wikipedia:Requested articles/music).

So I finished work on one of the requested articles, String Sextet No. 2 (Brahms).

How do I now indicate that I have written the article, so that it comes off the list? The main Wikipedia:Requested articles page makes a brief reference to editing the list, but I'm not sure how to go about this.

Thanks, --CaritasUbi (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for writing the article, it is most useful. I have removed it from the requested list here. MBisanz ^talk 21:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange result on ChallengeYou deletion.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ChallengeYou seems to have had a bizarre result. Now I've never heard of ChallengeYou until reading a talk page referencing it, but the current situation is silly. ChallengeYou is a metagame / game designing game. Right now, it's name redirects to List of multiplayer browser games... a list that it is not on because over there they only list games with articles. I would say the redirect should probably go. Cheers, Nog lorp (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a better place for it to point at, then feel free to change it, otherwise WP:RFD is probably best. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks!

I have bookmarked that page: That information will be very useful the next time I edit something.

-t --Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelton (talk o contribs) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

If you have the time, please check your Wikicommons account for my message. There is also 1 OTRS request which I have forwarded. I will comment on your edits. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deciding whether to edit or just talk about it

(see also Analysis paralysis) Newbie request for guidance: I see a lot of articles with extensive talk pages discussing recommendations for specific edits, suggestions, etc. I understand the need for collaborative thinking, but in the spirit of Be Bold, I usually just plunge in (if I think I'm qualified). For example, my recent edits of Atlanta Ballet. It had three flags at the top for NPOV, copy editing, lack of references, etc. I did some research (really just Googling terms in the article and some common sense), added citations, stuck an image of their performing venue (from Wikipedia Commons, of course) and hit the "save page" button (actually, took me about an hour or two with a bunch of previews). Then I deleted the three tags saying it needed this kind of work.

Should I have discussed these changes first? The backlog of articles needing copy editing is never going to be cleared if everybody is too cautious. I'm assuming somebody will complain if my edits are substandard.

CaritasUbi (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD renomination of Bristol Indymedia

I have renominated Bristol Indymedia for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia (2nd nomination). Since you participated in the previous nomination, good wikiquette counsels advising you of the relisting. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but seeing as I had no opinion when I closed the first AFD, I think I shall abstain. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of William Penn Society

If you're going to delete the William Penn Society for lack of noteworthiness then I suggest you delete all of Whittier College's society pages and every student society on wikipedia which is not a national organization. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.74.0 (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but there was a valid AFD on it, so you would need to see WP:AFD or WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I never thought that someone would actually go ahead and do it

To log or not to log

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines Should enforcement actions be logged and if so where? I am not involved in enforcement action, I merely ask this just from a desire to understand the matter and also noting the comment at User talk:Alastair Haines#June 2009 regarding logging. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk o contribs)} 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, this is awkward since usually once we blank a case, the parties are nice enough to not violate things. Just toss a section on the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines with a level-two heading of "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions". MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this include 1) all blocks/bans/restrictions since the arbcom decision, copied over from the blanked page history; 2) only those since the initial courtesy page blanking; or 3) only the most recent one?--Doug.^{(talk o contribs)} 09:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I copied over a section, best to add yours at the end. MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Afd Greenfinger

Seeing as you have taken part in the conversation before I thought you should be notified of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). The previous decision seems to have been against consensus, which was more for redirect. I personally think the article should be deleted. This is not canvasing as I am informing all people involved in the previous discussions and nobody outside of the discussions. Polargeo (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion for your comment.

Please comment on the question I've posed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Merge List of United States district courts by case citation into List of United States district and territorial courts?, about, well, whether we should merge List of United States district courts by case citation into List of United States district and territorial courts. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Backseat Baby

Why did you delete this? Did you check the history?? It used to be a valid article. 24.64.165.129 (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the history. Although I still question it as an article. MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The laying down of the smack

MBisanz, when you get around to applying said smackdowns, let me know. I have dibs on the popcorn concession :) Thanks for the fixes, BTW -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

St. John's University

Our friend User:Newyorkborn has now taken to accusing me of being part of some vast scheme with the 208 IP editor to conspire against him and other such nonsense on Talk:St. John's University (New York). I have an extremely short fuse when it comes to accusations against my motivations and history on Wikipedia since I already openly disclose my identity, affiliations, and biases. I have already notified him of my displeasure, but I would appreciate it if you could drop a note on how unacceptable this behavior is. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Grr, this is moderately annoying that the other two parties to the dispute appear to have COIs that they are not disclosing. As a mediator I'm restricted from admonishing parties, but I am rather unhappy at how things are progressing at the page. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia