This is an archive of past discussions with User:MBisanz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Patience is a virtue, also, you wont be the one to block steve crossin as the situation is clearly being handled by ArbCom and is beyond any administrators discression. when they get enouigh views arbcom will act. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk)07:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
banned
I'm not actually banned you know - I'm just blocked forever - belive it or not there is a difference I was surprised to find that one out). Someone tried for a community ban but it was opposed. --87.114.7.44 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly true. There was an attempt to suggest that Fd be unblocked, when User:Allemandtando was unmasked, and it went down in flames. There was a prior attempt to create a community ban through discussion at AN/I, as I recall, and there was one admin who refused to support it. I've heard the definition of community ban be that no admin is willing to unblock. That's obviously true at this point. There was some negotiation attempted, and I tried to support it, but he, apparently, will not tolerate anything that leaves him visible.
In any case, MBisanz, you blocked the IP Fred was using for a week. That's ineffective in stopping him, because he just reboots and acquires another IP in the 81.112-87.115 range within minutes. A day should be sufficient if you are going to do it, not sure if it is worth it. (The risk of blocking an innocent user is low, but not zero.) It occurred to me that there would be a more effective way of dealing with his edits, and those of people like him, but it would require some thought. By the way, he continued vandalism to my Talk page, when it went off protection briefly, and did what he could, before that, to vandalise a self-RfC I've created in my user space. Ironically, I invited him to participate, I think he might have something to say of value, but I think he has another agenda. --Abd (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't use my name as a excuse to spam your sham RFC. You just don't get it - nobody wants to be involved in such a rigged process. And there isn't an effective way to do with my edits - because there doesn't need to be - my main account has over 30,000 and is a well respect editor. My secondary account has about 10,000 edits and although not so well known is a well respected policy maker. --87.112.53.52 (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Who were you suggesting make a report, Prom3th3an? About what?
Is Fredrick day lying? He's lied so much.... I've identified several possible accounts as possibly what he is talking about, but so far evidence hasn't been developed or nailed down sufficiently to warrant -- or allow -- any specific mention. It does not depend on checkuser: the user relies upon multiple simultaneous logins using different ISPs. Article overlap is avoided. "Well respected policy maker." Wouldn't that be a matter for concern, if this is true? A "well respected policy maker" actually believes in vandalism against editors, disruption, and pure venom. It might explain some things.
As to my self-RfC, it's a preliminary process. If nobody gets involved, I simply go to the next step in WP:DR. This is an opportunity to avoid disruption, if it fails, the only one who has wasted time is me, and Fredrick day with his continued vandalism, a minor annoyance. The time he spends vandalising me is time taken from other damage, and it provides one more possible linkage to the puppet master. He's not perfect, he makes mistakes, the more edits, the more possible a slip. --Abd (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hiya! Matt, can you remove the rather large box and just leave the text? I appreciate your opinion here, and agree that the concerns needed to be raised, but the large box does look a tad attention seeking or something. Ta! Pedro : Chat 22:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
So I see. No worries my man, it just looked a bit jarring. Again, glad you brought up the subject as it needs to be reviewed. Hoping you're well. Pedro : Chat 22:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I remember formally ceding the rights to the wikimedia foundation, but I don't know exactly how the image is licensed. You may want to contact samuel klein? Tlogmer(talk/contributions)03:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
you nominated Wikipedia:Page protection patrol for deletion a while ago. it was kept, but the main person supporting it and the person that created it was banned. that project looks to be dead. i tried to re-nominate it, but the normal templates didn't work. --Buridan (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Own noticeboards and now own template!
When it gets to the stage of needing a template to keep track of the different subpages... Not sure whether to be dismayed at that or impressed! Thanks for creating that. I would suggest linking the arbitration cases, but that would be over-the-top and isn't AN/ANI stuff anyway. It's got me wondering though. If I linked all the ANI threads I'd participated in, and created a box like that, how long would it be? I guess the difference is between participating in a thread and having a thread started about you (though I could link the ones I started). The real problem is that a very productive editor using bot tools or automated tools or (as now) semi-automated tools, even slightly off-kilter will get lots of complaints. There are other bot and Twinkle/AWB editors that do similar or higher volumes, with less complaints though. There should be a way to invoke a "too many complaints" clause in bot policy (with someone fairly judging the complaints) followed by a request for further testing/discussion and/or throttling back the volume of work done to reduce the frequency of complaints. Or, even simpler, require one issue to be dealt with (not simply discussed and rejected out-of-hand) before more work is done. I'm also thinking: why am I getting drawn back into all this! :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Typo
Why did you think this was moribund? As far as I know there are lots of people quietly fixing typos. PamD (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
MoP and Dereks1X
As you might've noticed, MoP has been gone for months and is thus unlikely to respond to your inquiry. I'd recommend letting things be with Oprahwasontv unless he gives you a reason to block him. He's not exactly active, anyhow. He just recently posted to MoP's talk in response to something MoP had said in February. He was gone 6 months. PS- I sent you an e-mail a few weeks ago. Regards, Enigmamessage19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I was not gone for 6 months. I was merely fed up with Wikipedia. Why help them when rude people and POV pushers are so mean? Some people are using it to campaign for politicians. This is bad for Wikipedia, no better than companies who promote themselves. I am still fed up with Wikipedia and will not waste my time editing except for occasionally and for just a day ro two at a time. What got me active this time was an AN thread about a POV pusher where the complainer got blocked, not the POV pusher. I say both of them should have been blocked. Oprahwasontv (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Skipped?
When I wrote that answer, it was intended to deal with editorial issues, i.e. things having to do with articles. It wasn't my intent to skip over it and I don't mind addressing it; I expected someone to bring it up anyway. Everyking (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I made some comments about that matter that were very mistaken, and I'm actually quite embarrassed by them now. In my defense, we were all pretty much in the dark about what was really going on at that time. Everyking (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Not really, some of us were involved at a very detailed level on that situation and others knew well enough to avoid it, quite frankly I'm highly concerned how you would handle a situation such as a block of a pro-pedophilia advocate if you had the bit in light of your prior positions. MBisanztalk20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I meant that the depths and severity of it were not generally known. Keep in mind that my comments on WR are sometimes just meant to raise ideas for discussion; it doesn't always mean I'd stand behind it in the final analysis, after appropriate consideration (as I don't in this case). I never took unilateral decisions on controversial issues as an admin, and I would never do so in the future, so I assure you that you would have nothing to worry about anyway. Everyking (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz, regarding your recent revert of my edit, I would ask you to take a closer look at the history of the page. First, I don't think I was changing the meaning of the policy, I was just reorganizing the section, removing some duplication, and rewriting a bit for clarity. Second, the entire section is new, recently added by Hiding (talk·contribs), per a discussion that we have been having at the talkpage of WP:RECALLME, where I was the one that suggested moving the information to Wikipedia:Administrators, and Hiding agreed. I have worked on other sections of the page in the past, so my presence there is nothing new.
If you would like to copyedit my change, or if you have a disagreement over a specific phrase, by all means change it, but simply reverting the entire thing out of hand was a bit uncivil. And lastly, it is a bad idea to revert an editor, without leaving a comment on the talkpage explaining the revert. Please try to do better in the future, and assume good faith, and everything will go more smoothly. --Elonka15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, are you sure this is something you want to lecture someone about? Do you not see that COI is an issue due to current circumstances? I strongly suggest you recuse yourself, thank MBisanz for helping you to avoid the appearance of misconduct, and stop tossing "AGF" at people who suggest you may actually be doing something you shouldn't. AGF does NOT mean "ignore all the rules and never criticize", as I am certain you are aware. KillerChihuahua?!?16:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry MB, I'd explained myself on the template's talk page before I got pinged with your message. Will self-revert now. Neıl☄08:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. It must be my computer that's preventing the upload button from doing anything for me. God knows why. U-Mos (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Agama Yoga Deletion by Keeper
Dear Friend, i am sorry if it takes me time to respond my work keeps me away from editing at the moment. This Tuesday or wednesday i will email-user you all the refferences i have. Tomeryogi (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the delay again. but i was unable to upload the refferences as images, how may i send them to you directly ? Tomeryogi (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bisanz. Sorry anothe rproblem with an image deleter. See here. The editors explanation for tagging many images prolifically in the last few days (check his editing history) is because he was blocked previously and now semes to be retalitating as if to say "If mine was disallowed why isn't yours" so to speak which has resulted in him going on an image attacking binge. COuld you look into it thanks The Bald OneWhite cat18:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I doubt he'll see it there though. He is obviously not blocked anymore, but rather seems to be upset with it and is taking it out on content rather than the ones who blocked him The Bald OneWhite cat18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Forums like...
About those contents, I just followed the criteria of the deletion of the image that I uploaded. If the criteria was wrong, then I was following wrong criteria, then it wasn't a reason to delete the image anyway. I don't want to vandalize or disrupt any content, it wasn't my intention.
With due respect, Mbisanz, you've been going around shouting Thekohser's RL name all over the place here, then complaining when he does similar. I've already had to redact some of them and now I'm drawing your attention to it. The rules here apply across the board, as far as I'm concerned, and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Personal info is personal info nor should one person's actions should not govern yours - Alison❤00:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Did the Kohser out someone? I thought he only used RL names that were well known and self-identified, such as Durova and JzG. Regardless, after the oversite he dutifully removed whatever other names he could find. Also, the discussion on that page was experiencing some good moments until you (MBisanz) came there and started acting like a child. Please don't return. --Duk00:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning RL names that are not publicly available is a no-no here. It's all part of the rules. I don't care whether Thekohser does it or Mbisanz does it - it's a matter of showing mutual respect. Either way, I often get to cleanup the fallout from these things so please, folks, don't do that - Alison❤00:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Alison for cleaning up TheKohser's edit quietly and without complaint, and yes I'm aware of the outing policy. But please consider that TheKohser followed your lead and removed whatever other names that were left on the page. I've even found myself accidentally using TheKohser's real name here - it's certainly not intentional. --Duk00:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh he did, yes. I saw that, and it was one I missed. Well done, indeed. So yes, if he's willing to at least try to abide by the rules here, then it's only fair that others do too. Right? :) Hence my comment - Alison❤01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Another thing MBisanz; I'm not 'rushing to defend' an indef blocked user, I'm trying to get a dialog going. Just because he's banned doesn't mean that you can go to his page and poke him with a stick. I'm tired of watching pompous admins creating the very 'Enemies of the Wiki' that they complain about with their childish behavior. TheKohser has some legitimate complaints that deserve to be heard - don't confuse that with 'rushing to defend'. --Duk00:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Duk-you are up to this Kohs thing to your eyeballs. You know perfectly well you shouldn't be taking admin actions against anyone in this case, yet you try to ban MBisanz from his talk page. If you're going to ban anyone, ban yourself, Duk. As for the outing issue, I make no comment, yet.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The messagebox was probably over the line, although I did not like Thekohser's edit before that calling me a "trolly troll", but I was wrong to retaliate. MBisanztalk01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Removing Sceptre's RfC from the main RfC page
Hi. I noticed you asked for someone uninvolved to take a look at this. That's me: uninvolved. I think the RfC should be re-listed on the main RfC page: I don't see any reason to remove it, and Ncmvocalist's edit summary doesn't help—like you, I can't find any AN discussion about it. I've asked Ncmvocalist for his reason [2] and will wait for a while for him to respond and explain. If he doesn't do that shortly, I'll restore it. After all, he removed it without giving a comprehensible reason (although I assume he tried to provide an informative edit summary; there just wasn't room for one). Regards, Bishonen | talk17:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC).
Articles by User:Martintaylor757
Hello again, MBisanz ... Please take a look at this list ... I may need a hand with the articles created in a single marathon session by this editor ... the "root" article is Freefall Productions, to which all of the others need to be wikilinked.
FYI, I've expanded the list, as now they are creating articles about the people mentioned in association with the films ... <Heavy sigh!> — 72.75.117.122 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a side point from a recent discussion - you said "Wikipedia isn't about giving you an incentive to edit, it is about a forum where individuals voluntarily and collaboratively participate to create free knowledge." Indeed that is true to some extent, but people would not voluntarily and collaboratively participate if there was not some value to them in doing it. People take pride in their contributions, some see it as a learning opportunity where they start with something they're interested in and not only get to learn about it but share it with the world. Some incentives are competitive in nature - there's no denying, to take one example, that the Australian politics editors have seen the Canadian effort in the same area and have found our own historical progress somewhat wanting, and that's provided something of a drive to fill out and catch up. And of course there's the incentive to squash attempts to push left- and right-wing agendas which are so often engaged on Wikipedia with academic sources. That's sort of an incentive to make Wikipedia an agenda-free place where the power of facts squash the art of hyperbole - something that rarely happens in the real world. (And yes, the use of hyperbole in the previous sentence was deliberate. :)) So yes, there is a voluntary contribution, but absent of incentives (99% of which are intrinsic or internalised, but gain their value from both the community interaction and the publishing aspect) there isn't really much point in editing. No more proof need be seen of that than the success of Wikipedia as against many less-well-read blogs, community news sites and the like where the incentive isn't there and contributions ultimately dry up. Orderinchaos02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I should have qualified that statement a bit more to read that Wikipedia isn't about changing to give a specific individual an incentive to edit. We all edit because we are we have some incentive, personal growth, spreading free culture, competing with each other, etc, but as a community we don't change our incentives at the turn of a dime for a single individual, which is the point I was trying to get across. MBisanztalk03:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
help with other editor
hello there, I am hoping you can assist me, my younger sister quit editing wikipedia about one year ago, another editor and his various socks were following her around from article to article making her life miserable and leaving weird and abusive messages on her talk page, she tried to create another account to escape this and then he had her accused of "sock puppetry" to get her account banned. Most editors involved in this vote have left the project. To make a long story short she wants nothing to do with this anymore and got her account "vanished" User Precious Roy and Ward keep bothering her and bring back information that was deleted by Flo: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.240.7.14&diff=234168217&oldid=234154700
Roy and Ward are obviously the same person and Roy brags on his user page that he is a sock puppet and has left the building. He did not go far as he continues to bother her and the articles she created. This is so weird. Is there anything to be done? Back in May Ward accused another user of being my sister. This is crazy as the ip was coming from "Cox Communications" we don't even have that ip here in Canada! I believe he made this false accusation so that my sister's account could be "unvanished" as it seems to annoy this user (why ..I don't know!) that she vanished. Why should he care?
As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.
Please get yourself out of that section that says "users who tried to resolve the dispute". Some others did, and I will acknowledge that. You didn't. I cannot remember any involvement from you other than making uninformed arguments on IfD (which were part of the issue, not attempts at solving it), and a nasty little attempt at piling on at AN with a piece of criticism that was (a) completely unrelated to the question, and (b) had been conclusively discussed between us in private before you saw fit to bring it up again.
So, this [3] is it? Now, let me ask you: did we or did we not discuss the issue of the Korean newbie before you brought it up? Did I or did I not give you an explanation for that incident? Was there a good reason for you to let the matter rest on IRC but then all of a sudden bring it out again in that public discussion? Can you imagine any reason I should, after this, accept your intervention as a good-faith attempt at solving issues? Fut.Perf.☼19:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(EC and I'm not wasting the edit) Personally I'd consider a throwaway comment at an admin board as not being an attempt at dispute resolution for certifying an RFC. Was there any actual conversation on a talk page anywhere? Why not just move yourself to endorsing the statement if that's the way you feel. SpartazHumbug!19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that was someone asking an image question who was too new to know how to post to your page, and you reverted them with a nasty edit sum. MBisanztalk19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, [6] is an interesting read, I thought we encouraged people to create free replacements when possible to avoid using copyrighted images. MBisanztalk20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This just goes to confirm my opinion about your knowledgeability in matters of non-free content. But you still haven't retracted your nonsensical accusation. Please remove it from the RfC. Fut.Perf.☼20:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You gave me an explanation in private, which I obviously won't reprint here, but I was unsatisfied with it, didn't want to continue to argue, and hoped it was just a standalone incident, events since then seem to indicate otherwise. MBisanztalk20:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, did you understand why I found your comment about that "free replacement" image issue nonsensical? Please look up "derivative image". Fut.Perf.☼20:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You want a serious discussion about WP:BITE? Okay, here goes. WP:BITE is not a suicide pact. It is a means of protecting good-faith newcomers who make their various harmless mistakes but have a potential of becoming useful contributors. Its purpose is not to protect those who have no such potential at all. The person in question knew next to no English, couldn't write a single sentence in English, and all he was here to do was to beg us: please write everything according to my nation's POV, I know no other POV, so it must be the right one. I wasn't rude to that person, I didn't insult him, I apologised for removing his posts, and then I just told him, in simple, neutral words, that this wasn't the right place for him. He never posted again. And that was the right result. This guy may have been the nicest person in the world, but he wouldn't have become a constructive contributor in a thousand years. Fut.Perf.☼20:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair-use
An Admin keeps removing images saying the images don't meet the fair-use guidelines. The images in question can't be replaced by free use. [7]
ATM I'm without a computer ATM as my power supply unit failed and I'm currently using my mothers computer which is slow and hard to read the screen. Bidgee (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've got no issues with having the opener then having the host but Rettetast is using their Admin powers for their POV (They hate fair-use images, contributions and talk page tell the story). Bidgee (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Recent posting at Request for Comment on Future Perfect at Sunrise
Hi MBisanz, I'm not sure I understand your recent posting at the Request for Comment on Future Perfect at Sunrise - are you saying templates such as {{Welcomeen-nl}} are uncivil? Or should he just chosen his words more carefully? PhilKnight (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
My thrust was that telling a user their language is poor and to go away is the wrong approach to a situation, using a template (like the one you have), or leaving a message in a nicer tone, or asking another editor who speaks the native language of the person to handle it (we have Babel for a reason), would be the preferred way of approaching the situation. MBisanztalk20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
McCain-Palin
Hi, thanks for the note regarding Image:McCain-Palin 2008 logo.jpg. I didn't initially upload that image, but did upload a revised version. I figured that if it is going to be used in Wikipedia articles, then the correct updated image should be used. Just out of curiosity, why has it been removed from all Wikipedia articles?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I reinserted into the Sarah Palin article. Given the instability of that article, it will probably be removed and reinserted repeatedly for awhile. In view of that, perhaps the best thing would be to remove the deletion request until that article becomes more stable and a consensus is reached there about whether or not to continue using that image?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Template Edit Suggestion
I welcome the effort made to produce the template you show in User:MBisanz/Coaching#Admin_coaching_request_status. I think it looks great. I do however wish to remark that where you write "know for certain your ready to begin", it would be better grammatically for you to write "you're" or "you are" instead of "your". "your" is only the possessive form of "you", as in "Your article is great.", like "MBisanz's" is the possessive form of "MBisanz", as in "MBisanz's article is great.". On a side note, stylistically, "you are" is prefered over "you're" in such a context. I'd WP:BB and fix it myself but I don't know how or if I can. :)--Thecurran (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Mauro Gianetti
Hi, an anon is repeatedly deleting referenced material about cyclist (now manager) Mauro Gianetti, specifically the paras, references and See also links to do with drug abuse. It is effectively rewriting/cleaning his history. Can you either warn him, block him, monitor him, or tell me what to do and how to do it. Thanks Autodidactyl (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Matrium, you are going the right way for a slapping if you don't show some semblance of life in #-en :) (Plus I'll continue to call you Matrium as well.) Regards, Daniel (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Autoformatting moderation
Thank you for doing this. I need to go to sleep now (it is late in my timezone), so I leave this matter in your capable hands. — OranL (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem, its all part of the mediation cycle, I suspect it will end up back at mediation at some point. Feel free to ping me if you ever need anything. MBisanztalk17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin, Descriptions becoming names, Wikipedia General Notability Guideline
Could you weigh in on these issues, re descriptions becoming names and the the Wikipedia:Notability policy?
Wikipedia General Notability Guideline and Sarah Palin
A controversy related to certain entities related to Sarah Palin has arisen in the Wikipedia community. This includes articles involving Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church. Discussions are heated because of the political environment, and allegations of censorship.
I argue as follows for inclusion of articles on some of her former teachers, pastors, churches, and schools, but not inclusion of others.
The Wikipedia:Notability policy allows for articles on persons or entities known only because they are related to major historical figures in some circumstances.
The teachers of historical figures, thinkers, mathematicians, painters, scientists, etc., are all notable for their relation to the ideas or actions of the historical figure. This is especially true if the teacher made controversial statements, and the same kind of controversial statements are what made the historical figure notable.
For example, suppose writings of the philosophy teacher of Socrates were discovered. The teacher would be known only for their relation to Socrates. But no one would argue that verifiable information about “the philosophy teacher of Socrates” would be of intense intellectual interest, and if anything, would be valid for a Wikipedia article. In fact, if you noticed the link for philosophy teacher of Socrates, you likely would want to see who it is and what their ideas are.
If Sarah Palin had a meteorology teacher who teaches the controversial idea that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Since Palin is notable for her controversial position on global warming, that teacher and their ideas would become notable.
But Palin’s high school astronomy teacher, even if he or she had controversial views, would not be noteworthy, as Palin is not known for her astronomy policy.
Arguments for The Alaska Pipeline put forth by Governor Palin, and for the War in Iraq by Vice Presidential Candidate Palin, explicitly included both being God’s Will. The former is consistent with the ideas of Larry Kroon. The later are explicitly the stated controversial ideas of her teacher in this area, Ed Kalnins. Ed Kalnins thereby becomes notable by his relationship to the controversial ideas of Palin, not just by his relation to Palin. This makes Kalnins notable in itself, while a former pastor of Palin who did not teach this would not be notable.
All of the teachers, schools, churches, or theories that teach controversial ideas, if they are the same as controversial ideas by which Palin has become notable, are thus notable.
They are notable for their relationship, not just to Palin, but to the policies and ideas by which Palin has become noteworthy.
Churches and pastors of Palin that are not linked to controversial policies of Palin are not notable.
We write articles about subjects who are notable in and of themselves, we do not create connections between living people or use generic names like "Friend of X"in titling our articles. We have a policy on biographies of living persons that requires we source any statement about a living person to a reliable source, I cannot ever foresee the day that we would define our own original research into what connections exist between people as a valid basis for naming articles. MBisanztalk01:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Old RfAs
If you're going to categorise old RfAs, don't use the modern headers. Just stick the category at the bottom. By the way, you've missed loads out. Might be better to work on more of the successful ones. I'll eventually have every successful RfA in its own subpage. Majorlytalk13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being aware of Wikiversity and taking the time to help point people towards Wikiversity when their goals do not match the Wikipedia mission. Wikiversity started out as part of Wikibooks, but Jimmy Wales decided that Wikiversity should be an independent sister project. --JWSurf (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it was the correct thing to do. If it was a mistake, it surely was not a "massive" one, but one that was reasonable to make. It appears that a consensus is emerging that the protection was correct, but that the time duration should be discussed further. Chillum16:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have commented on User talk:Bidgee, [14]. From an AN/I report he filed, I became aware of this editor's activities with 104.1 Territory FM, where what might have been easily resolved with some civil negotiation turned into an edit war, resulted in the block of an editor, what should be a familiar story, all too often. When I intervened (with what became, hopefully, a consensus edit), he responded uncivilly, referring to some prior history between us as if it were a cause of this. I don't recall ever seeing his name before. But because he'd referred to prior history, I reviewed his contributions, and noticed a disturbing tendency to become involved in conflict that he may be creating by an aggressive approach. He uses edit warring to enforce his view of correct content; in a current situation, he referred to apparent good faith edits (albeit unsourced, turns out the source was personal knowledge verified by organizational records, the edit is the President of the organization -- yes, I've notified that editor of the problems with this) as "vandalism." Which they clearly were not. This kind of claim alienates inexperienced editors. If you have time, please look at Bidgee's edits. I warned him about his 3RR violations on Nathan Rees, and he reverted with "Stop harrassing me and stalking me!". (of course he has the right to delete from his Talk page, that's not the issue, the issue is the general behavior, and I'm not seeking to have him blocked, just that his behavior become less disruptive.) Obviously, this may take some assistance, he's not at all responsive to me, right from the start. --Abd (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Abd is stalking my edit history which all started with 104.1 Territory FM article and is using this to harass me and ddrive me off Wikipedia and I'm not far from it. All this is about is the old CarolSpears/Blechnic issue back on AN/I a few months ago and is trying to under mine my work here. With the Nathan Rees article the content added was unsourced[15] and I even posted a message to help them which seemed to go un-noticed[16] which is why I then went to [17] then [18]. WTF at a editor being block? How I understand no editor from 104.1 Territory FM has been blocked. Bidgee (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that I'm about to take a nap, so everyone, feel free to talk as much as you want here, just remember I am an involved administrator on both of you from past actions, so I can't do anything administrative to either one of you. MBisanztalk16:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggested you look at this as an administrator whom Bidgee might trust, seeking to resolve the issue (of editor behavior, there is no content issue at this point that I'm aware of and, in fact, I've basically agreed with (Nathan Rees) or compromised with (Territory FM) Bidgee's position. Edit warring, though, breeds edit warring. Lanatanabelle was apparently edit warring on the Territory FM article. Why? Because Bidgee was edit warring (I count 4 reverts on August 29). Was Bidgee correct on the content? Possibly. But we don't need to make that judgment. 3RR isn't permitted based on correct content, except under some circumstances with BLP, which don't apply with Territory and possibly not with Rees. Complicating it is that Lanatanabelle may be an SPA, etc.
Mbisanz, though, yes, you should not block me because of prior involvement (though I'd actually waive that, it's not necessary for me to do so), you can certainly warn me if I'm off-base. And I assume we would discuss it civilly and come to consensus.
Meanwhile, Bidgee has retired. See [20], [21] (in which Bidgee apparently takes Minkythecat's sarcastic supportive comment as meaning the reverse of Minky's intention) [22], [23], and [24]. Bidgee was under no threat from me, so his retirement is a mystery, unless he is one of a class of editors who bail when they find that others can see what they do, and sometimes intervene to reduce damage. Absolutely, I did not seek his retirement, nor did I make any charges against him, beyond noting 3RR, but not reporting it, that would rise, in my opinion, to blockworthiness unless a pattern were repeated after proper process to effectively warn.
The Carol Spears/Blechnic connection is mysterious to me, certainly I wasn't aware of it, I'll look back. Blechnic apparently also retired when I became involved; there, I was definitely hard on Blechnic, who nearly harassed and hounded a very productive editor off the project. Blechnic made no retirement announcement, he simply stopped editing, abruptly. Even with Blechnic, I wasn't pursuing him and merely mentioned him and his activities when arguing for the lifting of the topic ban on User:Wilhelmina Will, a project that succeeded, even though I was blocked in the process. Now, with Bidgee retired, I wonder what we would find if we actually look closely at what he was doing? From what little I've seen, there might be a lot of cleanup. Not article cleanup, but editor cleanup, editors who were damaged needlessly. It may be possible to undo some of that. --Abd (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"Now, with Bidgee retired, I wonder what we would find if we actually look closely at what he was doing? From what little I've seen, there might be a lot of cleanup. Not article cleanup, but editor cleanup, editors who were damaged needlessly. It may be possible to undo some of that."
This is what I thought it was. Your using me as a witch hunt. My edits are fine here and I've not damaged the project. Stop your stalking and harassments.
"[25] (in which Bidgee apparently takes Minkythecat's sarcastic supportive comment as meaning the reverse of Minky's intention)"
That comment wasn't for Minky (My net lagged when posting and seen the comment made by Minky and thought it be best to remove). Bidgee (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. I don't find the parenthetical explanation above comprehensible, like a fair amount of what Bidgee has written.
Bidgee, if you unretire, I'd suggest finding an experienced editor whom you trust to advise you when you find yourself in conflict, because it seems reasonably likely to me that you aren't understanding much of what's going on. I did not attack you and have not been harassing you, had no goal of driving you off or of interfering with your legitimate editing; I merely noticed two incidents where you might have been more engaging and civil, and intervened to help resolve the issues without any further blocks or AN/I reports or the like.
The connection with Carol Spears/Blechnic I still don't understand, but for sure I had no idea that you had been involved with me in the past or who you were. My comment above about reviewing your work was in the first person plural, and not necessarily something I'd do myself, but this kind of thing isn't harassment at all, it is prudence; consider, for example, those who felt it necessary to clean up after Carol Spears, rightly or wrongly.
If your behavior in other situations was like that in the two incidents I've seen, I'm saying, there is likely some work to do. Your edits seem to have been technically correct, so the "work" would not be an undoing of your article work, but identifying, possibly, editors who may have been blocked or otherwise frustrated without necessity, like the two involved in these two incidents. What I'd do there, if it's me, is to apologize for the misunderstandings, and attempt to make sure that the legitimate concerns of those editors are respected. For example, with Nathan Rees, the editor you were reverting seems, if we AGF, to have been quite ignorant of what was happening, and I'm working with him to see if his insertion can be sourced; it may be possible.
That you removed the material isn't the problem, it's how you did it, calling it "vandalism," which is something that Blechnic also did with edits of Wilhelmina Will and, I think, Carol Spears, when the edits were clearly good faith edits, even though improper. --Abd (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice note on my Talk page. I think a teensy bit of my AN/I comment was that since I haven't walked in an Admin's shoes, I really didn't want to be telling an Admin what I thought was best practice. Yet I honestly couldn't figure out why that was there, other than the person wanted to vent. (Which IMVHO doesn't seem to fit on AN/I either. But again, that's where my limit of Wikiknowledge takes over.) ;) LaughingVulcan12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
YOU!
CWii(Talk|Contribs) has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
DougsTech (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Let's be friends
Hello MBisanz, Tharnton345 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
RfA thank you
MBisanz/Archive 4, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me. — JGHowestalk - 19 August 2008
Rollback? Hmmm.
So far, I haven't found the (undo) to be too burdensome. I do appreciate the thought, as it would not have occurred to me that rollback would be available except as part of a more general admin role which I certainly would not qualify for (I don't know enough and won't be doing enough work to learn). I mostly get involved with vandals only if they capture my attention. Glad I spotted the vandalism, and happy to zap it, always.
While I am not yet sure that the Wikipedia model is quite "It"... I am sure it is a magnificent tool and it pleases me to see so very many people building it up, and offends me to see others tearing it down.
Thanks for doing the Admin thing. :)
Janna BOT?
Why doesn't this have "bot" in the name? Aren't bots supposed to have bot in the name so we know it's a bot? How many nonbots have a bot flag? What is the effect of a bot flag on a regular user account? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Some bots don't have bot in there name, per [27], not many, but since this bot is only for using the HighAPILimit query function (it can read bigger chunks of the database at a single time) and not the HideRecentChanges edit function, it shouldn't create an issue. Ideally all bots should have "bot" in their name, but since this account was only deflagged for inactivity and won't be editing, I didn't see enough of an issue to ask the operator to get a rename. MBisanztalk22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
OK on this one, but what about Danielfolsom2? It's a real bot and I think we should enforce actual bots having bots in their name. How likely is it we can enforce this, at least from now on, and even change the names of bots like Danielfolsom2? I feel very strongly about bots having bots in their name. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd ask Janna's owner if he'd be "OK" with a rename, since there really is no reason a person can't change the name of a bot account. Danielfolsom2 also probably should have a rename. Right now bot policy says
"The account's name should identify the operator or bot function, and make the nature of the account clear by incorporating the word "bot", with exception for bots already active on other wikis."
Some bots like CommonsDelinker can't be renamed because of their cross-wiki nature, but I would be willing to support a change from the word should to must and notifying all old bot owners that they must select a new name that includes the term "bot". MBisanztalk00:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please approach those two about rename and go about changing BAG policy as you guys handle that. If you want other crat input, ask or ask me to handle that end. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please check your e-mail too, for a message related to tonight's event. Sorry for the short notice, and thanks.--Pharos (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Copying this to all admins who applied or extended protection on the Sarah Palin article.
To date there's been plenty of evidence pointing to discussions and otherwise offering commentary on the admin actions taken, but there's been little covering the circumstances prior to admin actions, namely the edits that the admins concerned based protection on. Newyorkbrad has put a question to the parties on this basis, but it seems to be only non-parties that have noticed that so far, so I'm putting this question to those involved directly.
Rootology has made a start here, and GRBerry has started drafting in his userspace. Ye might like to assist them in their efforts, or add a section of your own. This evidence will be vital in assisting the Committee's understanding of not only what happened and when, but why it happened. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin wheel war case request for evidence
Okey, I had intended to mostly agree with Rootology and GRBerry in fulfilling Brad's request, but will try to craft my own section tonight. MBisanztalk14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Visibility-IT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
A tag has been placed on Template:Visibility-CT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
A tag has been placed on Template:Visibility-HT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
A tag has been placed on Template:Visibility-MT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
A tough one to fix... though I did okay for not being able to read Croatian. Can you suggest what else I might do to improve this thing? Thanks, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.08:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Im taking the time to reply to everyone remarks on the ANI thread. In your case this "I'm beginning to wonder if some further level of dispute resolution will not be required here. Prom3th3an originally began feuding with Deskana, than me when I intervened as an uninvolved admin, and now AuburnPilot. It seems like there is a definite pattern of disruption and incivility developing here."
Answer:
Deskana - Cooldown Block
MBisanz - Punitive Removal of Rollback and Account Creator
I Prom3th3an, Almighty comedian of Wikipedia hereby award you (MBisanz) this barnstar for doing or saying something that I found extremly humourous or otherwise witty beyond expectation. Take a bow. PS: Your name has now been crossed of my whichunt list ;) «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk)15:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Statest.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Statest.gif. 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) 05:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I know several people have been having a problem with a relist user script lately, so perhaps this is the case with you? I completed the relist process for you on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health_care_politics, (the commenting out on the old log and the transclusion on the current log). If it was just an oversight or internet connection problem or whatever, then no problem, but if it is a user script problem, please have it looked at by the script developer. Thanks, Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo02:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
WORKSFORME. Did it actually say it finished? Sometimes the server will hang on relists, trying to save 3 pages at once and it can take a few seconds for all of them to finish. Mr.Z-man02:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, that was after, this is very odd, I think the script is not commenting correctly. I'll avoid any more relists tonight with it. MBisanztalk03:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, it was your idea to create "archive" subpages for them from the old process page? I think it's handy to have them available by intuitively looking for the subpage in WP:RFA. However, I think a hatnote of sorts would be a good idea, with a link to the source page that contains the actual history. Everyme07:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, only just now. If you want faster responses on matters like this, you should ask me directly by e-mail as a GC (which I review every day), as opposed to as an Arbitrator (once a week when things are very busy, as I need a few hours' concentration). :-(
Yes, I'm happy to release you from the convention for this matter, if you think it necessary. It will be considered whether or not you post it publicly.
Hey. I noticed you deleted Talk:Neurotically Yours as a G6 today. Did you also delete Neurotically Yours? The reason I'm asking is because, apparently, Neurotically Yourshas been deleted (see Special:Undelete/Neurotically Yours), but there is no entry in the deletion log. The article was clearly not a speedy deletion candidate, but I can't find an AfD entry for it, either, and I can't even find out who deleted it in the first place, so I'm a bit confused now. Since you deleted the talk page, I figured that you might hopefully know what has happened here. --Conti|✉12:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! Just out of curiosity, will the deletion log for the article appear eventually when the server catches up, or will it stay empty? --Conti|✉00:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It'll always stay empty, the system goes through a process to delete a page, and the last thing it does is log the deletion. If the server times out, it never gets logged, I've seen a similar thing happen with certain types of checkuser blocks and crat renames. I could undelete and redelete it, but it would freeze the server again and no guarantee it would create a log entry. MBisanztalk00:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that. You learn something new every day, I guess. :) You could create a dummy page and delete that one, tho; that should probably work. --Conti|✉00:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
...who are willing to help hack through the labyrinth we call Wikipedia Policy. I've started up a project called Wikipedia:Policy condensing to help address the increasingly problematic instruction creep on the 'pedia. Ideally, this project will work to condense, merge, and in some cases delete the jillions of policies and guidelines into their basic components, so that both new and experienced users only have a few pages to read through if they have a question or concern instead of many. I'm hoping that once this project is through, we'll be able to reduce the number of policy and guideline pages by half while still keeping all the nuances and interpretations clearly available for users to understand. I'm contacting you about this because either you have previously expressed an interest in this, and/or I know I can count on you as a reliable editor who knows their way around the project. I'm not advertising this in the open just yet, as I'm hoping we can get a good foundation started with the few editors I'm contacting now so that when we do make this more public, we've already got a head start to show people what this project can do. So, if you've got the time and are willing, please stop by Wikipedia:Policy condensing and jump right in. If you have any questions, post to the project's talk page or leave me a note - I'll see it quickly either way. As always, thanks for your help. Hersfold(t/a/c)20:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
A Little Help
Hi. I accidently loss some sort of program on my computer or I think I accidently uninstalled it. I was wondering, would it be free to upload the Adobe's Flash Player? Also the same for Macromedia Flash Player and any of the other Adobe programs. CHANLONG (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Also what is JavaScript?
Re: Logos
I was planning to take a look at that list today. I've already gone through the book covers, but there wasn't much worth fixing there. I'll see what can do with the logos. Bláthnaidtalk18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you made the close decision for this article based upon what? I didn't put it up for AfD because it was a real term that didn't deserve an article, it isn't a term at all. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The bot's program has been deleted (so it won't have any further activity). Do I still need to do anything? TEO64X13:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)--
Nope, I'll just have a crat turn off the bot flag. If you ever want to run it again, just ping me and I'll have it re-added. Thanks for the quick response MBisanztalk13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your role in investigating votes during this process. I was unaware you were involved in that and I appreciate it. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This is just a brief note to indicate that I will be seeking a review of the deletion decision on the ANZAPA page. As this is the first of these "deletion reviews" I have instigated I will need a while to figure out the procedure. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That is your prerogative, you may find the instructions at WP:DRV useful. May I suggest though that with a vote of 8 to delete and 3 to keep, and with the delete votes citing policies such as WP:N and WP:RS and the keep votes citing no policies or evidence to the contrary, that I still believe it was the correct close. MBisanztalk11:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
And yet I look at Stupid Evil Bastard, which strikes me as having no redeeming features at all, no references and no sources, and yet that was restored. The ANZAPA page had some 8 to 10 references, 6 or 7 external links, and at least one strong independent research listing and still it was deleted. I will admit that the last of these was only added this evening but it was still there. A number of arguments I raised in the discussion were also not answered, which left me curious. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I must apologise if my previous comment came across as being aimed at you. Please be assured that it was not. I probably just needed a vent. Thank you for your comments above regarding the reasons behind your decision. I will certainly take note of them in my request for review. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks harmless -- perhaps you should ask would-be nominee and anyone else who edited the page. If they want to keep it, then I suggest keeping it (perhaps move it into user space if it really bothers folks to leave in Wikipedia: space).
There's some possible stigma in showing up on a category page of failed RfAs, especially if you never stood RfA.
You may want to doublecheck your list; glancing quickly, here are some others:
Yea, that has been my method so far, if someone opposes or if the person writes a long and involved statement, I tag it as unsuccessful. I've deleted a good number, but would be willing to test some like 509BWPA and Alokprasad84 through MFD to establish a precedent. MBisanztalk21:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) One pure delete was struct, but there are several that are basically delete by redirecting, and a good number of merges that I felt should not be discounted. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You claim that the user share the same IP, has similar nickname and editing topics as a banned user. But he twice[29][30] denied ever editing pedophilia related article. I had a brief look at his contributions and can't find any as well. Can you point me to them? --Dodo bird (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thankyou for updating the license on Image:LBClogo.gif - i'm not great when it comes to those things and anyway, i uploaded it a long time ago - these things slip the mind
Hi, sorry to bother you at your talk page. I don't normally chase BAG members around, but the Bot Approval Process seems to have stalled this last week. I was wondering whether you could take a look at my very simple request for my already-flagged bot. It's just to change some headings in Tropical Cyclone articles, per the recent consensus on the project talk page. PlasticupT/C21:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi MBisanz. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας•discussion•22:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This image was apparently deleted b/c it didn't have a fair use rationale. I've restored the image (rather than go to the trouble of having it re-uploaded) and added a fair use rationale, and have additionally fixed the licensing template. Regards, PhilosopherLet us reason together.01:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I was reading Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and saw the entry for Patrick M. McCarthy. When I went to read the article, I found that I concurred completely with those that described it as a coatrack for issues surrounding the detentions in Guantanamo Bay. I looked back in the history for an acceptably neutral version to revert to but could find none and was about to summarily delete it under the provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Then I saw that the most recent revision was your removal of the AfD tag. I still wish to delete it for the same reasons, in spite of the AfD. Could I ask you to review your closure and the article itself and let me know what you think. CIreland (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I just saw that an article that I had written about my teacher was deleted. This was my first page and I do not understand the reasons for the deletion. Could you explain them to me and perhaps help me fix the article?
thanks,
Ezra Sofer
I am not familiar with that exact article, you may wish to ask at the [[WP:HD|helpdesk] to find out why it was deleted and what your next step should be. MBisanztalk08:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
DJ Warrior
Hi! Thanks for re listing the entry, I have now included all the references and it is all 100% official from official sources and credible sites. If you could ignore what the entertainment industry calls "haters" on the articles entry discussion page, and have it stay on Wikipedia as the information is directly from those many many credible sources that are all over the internet, That would be great, Thank you. --Journaldiction (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mbisanz, I took a wikibreak for more than a month due to computer problems and being busy with school, and was less active for a few months before that, but I hope to be more active again from now. I just wanted to say that I've seen how hard you've been working as an admin for the past 6 months or so, and you are really doing a great job. From the time that you were asking me questions in order to prepare to be an admin, I knew that you were serious about being one of the best Wikipedia editors. The amounts of positive discussion on your talk page and the variety of activities that you participate in are amazing. Keep up the good work, and I hope we can help each other sometimes on administrator tasks. Academic Challenger (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It was an honor being mentored by you, you made me the editor I am today, anything I can ever do to help, just drop me a line. MBisanztalk15:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I had worked in the building for Philip Morris. I was surprised to realize that this iconic building did not have an article until you created it. Nice work. Alansohn (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make it, but I think it is a good idea. Doesn't use anything "Nielsen" "owns" (whatever) and let's us keep the information without them having another DMCA hissy-fit. Is this doable? If so, I can knock about 15 of these out right fast. - NeutralHomer • Talk04:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Erm, I don't think so, Nielsen owns the actually way of categorizing the data into markets and categories, your template seems to have the same headings and categories. Best to consult with Mike Godwin before doing anything. I don't know the details of the notice, but it looks too similar. MBisanztalk04:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I am really confused.....they own the way we make our templates on Wikipedia? Wha? Seriously, I am confused. If anyone emails or message Mike are we going to get a straight answer or some legal-ese jargon or nothing at all? What's our next step or do we just do nothing. I am kinda upset too that Wikipedia didn't decide to fight this. - NeutralHomer • Talk04:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Your template has it broken into the Seattle area, with things like defunct, cable, etc. I believe it is that schema that Nielsen owns, although I have not researched it. Best next step is to contact Mike Godwin. I've seen this sorta thing at least three times, although not on as large a scale as this, so it isn't that unusual. The log diff if you are interested is [31]. MBisanztalk04:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Although I agree with your assessment as "no consensus" (even as the nominator), did you close this AfD a little early because of the pending Slashdot link? Just curious, mainly. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right my closing script broke, nope SlashDot had no role in my decision to close or in the result of consensus I interpreted. MBisanztalk02:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bank of new york.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bank of new york.gif. 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) 05:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The result was not delete. At the very least, it was no consensus. The delete votes were all going off an old version of the page. After I improved it, there were two keep votes excluding mine that had better reasoning behind them. The only delete vote was an unsubstantiated opinion. Yet the result is delete? That is irresponsible. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Many individuals commented in favor of deletion, and none of them struck or changed their vote following whatever edits you may have made. Additionally, at least one more individuals commented in favor of deletion after your changes. Therefore, I feel it was an appropriate close. MBisanztalk08:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD is not a vote. The outcome is determined by the reasoning behind the votes, not the number who voted for or against. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know it is not a vote, that is why I weighed the comments and still felt that people generally believed it should be deleted. MBisanztalk12:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Even after you added sources, people still indicated that I'm not impressed with the accumulation of minor competitions and webzine coverage that's being used in this article., as that was the same viewpoint taken prior to the content changes you made, people still felt the sourcing was of too low a quality to keep the article. MBisanztalk16:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
ONE person said that, eventhough that viewpoint runs against Wikipedia's notability guideline on music. In addition, two votes after me, one of them from Bearcat (who needs no introduction), went with keep. That should put it in perspective. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Truly amazing
The article THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS) was nominated for deletion on September 18. Within three days, you deleted it based on less than four comments. Not one single commentor made note of the fact that THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS) is a significant element of the U.S. political scene. Alfred W. McCoy first made note of THE OCTOPUS in his 1972 book The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. Claire Sterling followed McCoy's expose` in 1990-94 with books: Octopus: The Long Reach of the International Sicilian Mafia, Crime Without Frontiers, and Thieves' World: The Threat of the New Global Network of Organized Crime.Danny Casolaro investigated something which he referred to as THE OCTOPUS, and his investigation eventually led to twenty years of U.S. history centering around suspicious political skulduggery that involved Inslaw, Iran-Contra, Oliver North, and Ronald Reagan—just to mention a few noteworthy elements. Yet, because someone feels that "a conspiracy" and all its tentacles does not belong in an encyclopedia you chose to delete THE OCTOPUS based upon the comment of a handful of individuals who showed absolutely no knowledge of the various elements of THE OCTOPUS. Heck, I have never even read the Wikipedia article called "THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS)" but I at least know that there must have been something there, and written by someone who recognized that THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS) was worthy of mention. Your deletion, and the speed with which it was done, is truly amazing. Hag2 (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
In a world of millions of people, you base your "clear and clean close" on five? Also, I believe the listing showed that it began on 13 September by a an individual who showed no participation in any articles surrounding THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS) anywhere. Then the first comment did not begin until 17 September. Further, not a single commentor (including you) showed any participation in THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS) anywhere—with the exception of one person who believed that THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS) was a cartoon of "a government"!!! Moreover, one of those commentors supporting deletion was even unwilling to be a registered member of Wikipedia. Lastly, there was no notice (that I can find) requesting comment from interested parties in appropriate places such as the talkpages of any one of the Wikified subjects listed above. I just happened to stumble upon your deletion because a Wikilink in Danny Casolaro went dead...THIS MORNING, not on 13 September! Sounds like a quick and "truly amazing" hatchet job to me. Hag2 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Erm, I'm not seeing how I did anything against any part of the deletion process. Could you explain further what procedure I failed to follow? MBisanztalk16:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
What's truly amazing is that he has yet to respond to my criticism. Although he had a valid reason to delete your article, mine was deleted based on the number of votes and not the reasoning behind them. If MBisanz has nothing to say to that, I will have to go to deletion review. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz, since I do not know much about the "deletion process" I can not comment further than what I have previously said. I believe that your deletion was performed much too soon.
If the process allows a single person without any knowledge of an article's subject matter (or any knowledge of the cross-linking around that subject matter) to nominate an article , then that process needs to be corrected.
If the process further allows a handful of uninformed individuals to make value judgements upon something in which they have shown not one iota of contribution, then that process needs to be corrected.
As far as I am concerned, your participation in the deletion of the aforementioned article, merely emphasizes that there is a serious need for correction to the deletion process. At the moment if I knew how (and where) to find the thing called "deletion review", I would ask to have your deletion reviewed—that is, reopened (Is that what that means?). Frankly, I am growing weary of Wikipedia and of Wikipedia's crosslinking from one set of instructions to another without dealing specifically with the problem at hand. All that I have been able to find on this particular article, is a handful of red-lettering saying, "Too bad, sport— the process is over."
What irks me is that someone once upon a time took a fair amount of time to write something about THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS) but whatever he/she wrote... WHO KNOWS NOW???
It truly amazes me just how simple it was for you to obliterate the efforts of that person's participation in Wikipedia.
Having spent over a month reworking a similar article, searching here and there for references, reliability, and credibility (because the previous editors were too lazy), it would annoy me to no end if someone simply walked into that article while I was on vacation for a week and deleted it with the eager assistance of five uninformed, quick-fingered people. To me, that is the worst kind of vandalism I have seen so far. Hag2 (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears as if I can add {{delrev}} to some page somewhere. Is this correct? I do not know where to find the appropriate page in order to add the notation. Where is the appropriate page? Hag2 (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, MBisanz, thanks for the heads-up note, and the opening of the DRV, but I am totally lost as to what to do next. Do I simply begin babbling over there at the DRV location? As I tried to explain above, I have yet to READ THE ARTICLE. I will be glad to voice my opposition based upon what I have said already. However it seems only logical that I should read the article in question to see if there is any merit in keeping the thing. As I tried to explain, I believe that I have some input to add and I would be willing to argue that I certainly have more "input" than the four people who argued in favor of deletion (since none of them offered a single reasonable reason for the deletion—other than the fact that the article had been unreferenced since sometime in 2007.) Help me out here. Is it possible to read the article? Or is it gone? Hag2 (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You should address the procedural faults of my deletion at the link over there. DRV is not about the content of the article, just the process used it delete it, but if you ask another admin, I'm sure they'd be willing to recreate a copy of it in your userspace for the duration of the DRV. MBisanztalk21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I went over there, and said my piece, and I imagine that whoever looks over the above discussion will see where I am coming from. However, I like the idea which you have suggested about recreating a copy. So where do I find someone to recreate it for me in my "userspace" (i.e. my "talkpage"???)
Thanks for taking all the time to explain these things to me. I truly appreciate the lesson. It has placed me squarely on the front of my chair. I have been working on several very related, tangential articles to the aforementioned and deleted one and it would stress me greatly to find my efforts suddenly in a similar predicament. It takes a great deal of time to research these things, to correct some of the miserable mistakes which are overlooked by others, and to try to write some sort of intelligible prose around the subject. Hag2 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz, I wanted to get back to you. I found the cache and read the article and agree with your first assessment. But...above and beyond all that, I want thank you for being patient with me. Early this morning, I was truly pissed: We66er exercised a great deal of self-centered rudeness by failing to notify any interested parties of his desire to delete that article. I do not find his approach to editing constructive. Hag2 (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bishop Brigante. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Block template changes
Hello. It appears that the tmbox changes you made to the block templates are not working correctly under IE 6, as the graphic overlaps the text. Since these templates are substituted, I am going to go ahead and revert your changes until we can figure out what is happening. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
WHATWikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and
StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.
WINNINGS?
Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!
WHEN
The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO
All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER
The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE
Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
As you asked me on IRC: I have fixed {{Blocked proxy}} and {{Uw-block1}}. It was not the fault of {{mbox}} or {{tmbox}}. It was your template code that was broken. But I don't blame you, that was complex cases, it took me 2 hours to fix them and test them...
No, I'm sorry, Wikipedia only accepts free media, uploading copyrighted programs is not permitted. Please try another site like www.download.com. MBisanztalk04:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No that not what I meant. I was just wondering if Adobe Flash Player and Macromedia Flash Player were free products. This doesnt involve uploading it on wikipedia. I just need to get at info that required these program in order to read. I'm just wondering if it causes money or not. CHANLONG (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, you reverted, well I'll answer here anyway. Short of blocking meta-spiders who grep our userspages, I don't know how to stop 3rd party sites from grabbing pages. Although I still think taking the pages off google is a good idea, apparently the community is against it. Maybe, someday, our internal search will be good enough that it won't be an issue, but until then, I don't have a good idea. MBisanztalk14:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for the misunderstanding.
I saw you answer above, and then start in on other things. no edits for several hours, and then again on other things, so I thought you were "tactfully" ignoring my questions.
As for the above, fair enough.
Though I have a feeling that there will come a point where ease in searching won't provide a strong enough arguement against it. - jc3714:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for having totally lost my temper the last few days. I don't understand this. Right now an IP is once again adding the BLP violating stuff to Thomas Muthee using YouTube as a reference. I don't understand why the ArbCom ruling is not being enforced and I don't understand why JzG ridiculed me on my clarification request when I helped him with the Mikael Pedersen article he started. Is it so wrong of me to expect that the ruling is enforced? I don't get this. I'll enable e-mail tomorrow. Whenever I enable e-mail Iamandrewrice starts e-mailing me so I need to set up a throw-away account first. I'll do that tomorrow and walk away for now as I sense that I'm probably too upset now. I on't understand why this is just being allowed to pass because no one is enforcing the ruling. At least the article could be semi-protected to keep the worst of the violations from being reinserted. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I've enabled e-mail now but I'm going out in about 15 minutes so I won't be replying until tomorrow, Danish time. There's about a year of repeated frustration and demoralisation behind this so be prepared for a long e-mail tomorrow! Believe it or not I actually used to be a fairly constructive and enthusiastic editor! Have an awesome Friday night! EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for enabling rollback on my account. I hope to learn to use the tool responsibly. By the way, you have an MBA at the age of 22? That is a remarkable achievement .
Bwrs (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone18:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you added a welcome template to my talk page some time ago. Thanks for that. I hope you don't mind answering the odd question!
I was wondering if there's an easy way to be notified (e.g. by email) if someone responds to any comments I've made on talk pages, or modifies/reverts edits I've made. Do you know of a way to get this? Thanks again. Andipi (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I do sometimes watch things, but I don't remember often to check the 'watch' page, and don't find it to be incredibly convenient, I guess I'll get used to it eventually!Andipi (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
NIKO logo
It was so long ago that I uploaded that graphic that I don't remember where I got it from. I'll see if I can find it somewhere. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I need to ask a favor! I went spam hunting today and found some 150 links to http://viddigger.blogspot.com which is a blog that makes money by embedding copyvios from Youtube and then invite the user to purchase the song on another site and some 10 links to http://www.quickfilepost.com which is a filesharing site used to provide illegal downloads of MP3 songs. Is it possible to blacklist those external links locally or do I need to ask on Meta? Thanks!! EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh crap! There is one link to the latter site that seems to indicate some usefulness as an external link http://www.quickfilepost.com/pages/g33-40/. The blog still needs to be dealt with though. http://viddigger.blogspot.com/2007/03/sinead-oconnor-nothing-compares-2-u.html Here is an example of the problem. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a good call, on copyright grounds if nothing else. The regexp for it is: \bviddigger\.blogspot\.com\b (where \b indicates a word separator, and \ escapes the . which would otherwise refer to any character). I'll add it locally later if you like. However viddigger.blogspot.com has spread to several other wikipedias,[33] so it would probably be better on the meta blacklist. I am unfortunately not an admin there. The request section is at meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Proposed_additions. If neither of you makes a request there I'll add one when I get round to it. Same for quickfilepost.com. -- zzuuzz(talk)16:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot to both of you. I have no idea how to get links blacklisted other than asking so this is very much appreciated. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
could you explain deletion of my edit here:
(Deletion log); 17:47 . . MBisanz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image talk:DCNG-levrette.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G2), was a test page. using TW)
That wasn't a "test page" and I'm curious why you would choose to delete it with such a description. In what way was my comment a "test page"? By your definition? How so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiehead (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I was scanning through all the image talk pages and that page appeared to be a random comment on Wikipedia in general. I could have deleted it as something else, but given that no one will ever read that page and it did not appear related to any topic, I did not see a reason to not delete it. I'll restore it if you wish. MBisanztalk02:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you read the comment then. It was very specific. Please restore it, and thanks for your consideration for a relatively trivial matter that perplexed me why anyone would do such a thing, but I see you were very busy deleting things that day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiehead (talk • contribs) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
You added a fair use rationale for using this non-free logo image in Sarah Lawrence College campus. I don't see the basis for this. This is the logo for the college, not for the college's campus. It identifies the college, but is not necessary for identification of the college's campus, particularly considering that there are numerous images of the campus available on EN and in Commons. With more images than can be reasonably fit into one article, I think there is no reasonable justification to use a non-free logo in this article. Can you explain? --Orlady (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Okey, makes sense, I saw it was in the article and one face value it looked like it could belong, but I do see that we have plenty of other images to complement the text. MBisanztalk23:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
1. As originator and major contributor to the pages I was not notified that they were up for deletion and, as far as I am aware, neither were other contriburors to the page. I appreciate that this is a courtesy and not a requirement, but nevertheless feel that some attempt should have been made to do so.
2. The original nominator, Lucy-Marie has a history of disagreement with me on a personal level and has on several occasions complained unsuccessfully that I have made personal attacks on her, without foundation, as the admins who have dealt with her complaints have held. I suspect, and only suspect, that this may be part of her real motive for having these pages deleted.
3. Her complaint that the pages were unreferenced/unsourced is correct. These were amongst the earliest pages I created for Wikipedia and I confess my ignorance then in thinking that election results being publicly published would need references. However, this in itself is not a reason to delete and a request for the refs to be supplied would have been more appropriate. If reinstated, it would be no more than a 5 minute job to give the references.
4. Her second complaint was that pages were potential BLP violations. This is palpable nonsense. If it is accepted that being noted as a parliamentary candidate is a BLP issue then we have to delete every other article that names a candidate in any election!!
5. The BLP issue was also referred to by Ruhrfisch, who comments that this is a party which many people view negatively. So what? Is he suggesting that someone's name might be added to the page as some way of attacking them? Or just that being a candidate for the BNP - a public declaration - is somehow placing oneself beyond the pale? Candidacy in elections is a matter of public record, nothing more or less. It is a simple matter for editors who watch the page to ensure that vandalistic spurious entries are reverted.
6. Ruhrfisch continues that "there is no way to verify that these were indeed the names of the candidates" which is also nonsense (and, incidentally, is an argument to be used to delete every article on an election, as mentioned previously). Firstly, as I have said, I can provide sources in a matter of minutes and, secondly, all of these details are in officially published records. Verification is so simple that I'm surprised it's even mentioned.
7. Lucy-Marie complains that there are not parallel articles for other parties. A moment's reflection will explain why this is so. The major parties (Labour, Conservative, etc) - generally contest every single parliamentary constituency. If you want to know which constituencies the Labour Party contested in the Feb 1974 general election, the answer is all of them. On the other hand, if you want to know which constituencies the NF contested, you have a massive task on your hands trawling through over 600 different contests to find the 10 that apply. I would suggest that articles such as these deleted are useful in helping readers to find information which is very difficult to get otherwise. (The same would apply to other smaller parties' results, but I have not written pages on them.)
8. Jasynnash2 suggests weak delete and comments that "The information should already be in the relevant election articles anyway." It isn't of course, and cannot fit there sensibly. Jasynnash2 also says that "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't meant to be a reason for keeping or deleting but, at the moment I can't think of what criteria this breaks" and "I've got to go with WP:IAR until some other people way in". My impression is that this user was so undecided that he is neutral, but, of course, no one did join in with a further argument.
Sorry to go on at such length. I am asking that you reinstate the two articles on the basis that the original discussion was not wide enough and failed to provide relistic and sustainablegrounds for deletion. I make the solemn promise that the only real objection - lack of sources - will be addressed at the first opportunity. I note from your User page that you are a graduate in political science - so am I. As one political scientist to another, I ask that you accept my good faith in this matter and my belief that these two pages are of interest and relevance to any reader seeking background information on the parties. Emeraude (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
1. it is not required that the article creator be notified; 2. three people other than Lucy commented so her motives are not really an issue; 3-6. content issues that the commenting parties weighed in voicing their views; 7-8. yes I weighed those concepts in deciding the close. AFAIK, the original discussion followed all of our policies and I can't just go around overturning what four people thought on the basis of a single request. You might look at WP:DRV as an option, either now or after you re-create the article in your userspace with citations. MBisanztalk21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration. I can't say that I agree with you, but.... Anyway, I will take your advice and re-create the articles with sources, and consider the WP:DRV process, but how do I get the articles to be able to do that? (I would like to have the data even if the pages are not recreated.) Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Not much use, since, as I said, I want to work on the pages with a view to resubmitting them with sources etc. Since the mirror sites are uneditable - it's not just the data but the table layout I need (and history would be useful too) - these are of no use. How can I get the pages into my workspace to be able to make the edits? Emeraude (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Oxyman (someone else, I think a sockpuppet) has blanked the page. Please, we anti-vandals need help! Rory (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Yea, based on the last comments on his page, I'm gonna avoid tagging or doing anything that might further annoy him. Trust me, there is a good reason. MBisanztalk23:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear MBisanz, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best.
Let me just start out by saying why the hell you delete the DJ DMD page? I spent hours on that and you just delete in a minute. DJ DMD is an incredable rapper from Port Arthur and i don't see why the hell you deleted it. All i'm saying is that i ask that you bring the page back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayehey12 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see any consensus there at all! In fact on the page there was even a comment by one poster wondering why there were so few people posting; how is this consensus? In fact I counted and as far as I can tell there were eight comments nominally in favor of keeping the article and only seven in favor of deleting it.
You should not have deleted this, I could repeat what was said above, it appears you have political motivations. I will request of a review of your actions and a review of your motivations, you should not be allowed to delete entries based on your own political leanings. You should be ashamed of yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.151.251 (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Very well, as I said above WP:DRV is the place to go. Oddly enough, I find the topic mildly interesting and would hope that someday we would be able to produce an article the community would consider worthy of inclusion. MBisanztalk17:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to get the old Nadia Nyce article that was deleted while I was on extended Wikibreak. I would like to get all the content (that I spent considerable time over the last few years) placed on to my user page. I can get the article back up to significance and I do have many 3rd party articles, sources and links. What do I need to do to in order to finish the job I spent so much time on. Thank you. Web Warlock (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bring you into this and know that you may not have as much knowledge in weather then myself but I'm asking you to look over is since you're not an Australian which some editors may dislike if I ask just an Aussie edit (which I will) to look it over.
Now no one has a source to the fact the Marco was a Hurricane/Tropical Cyclone strength system other then sourcing a warning from the NOAA and a source about Cyclone Tracy which states nothing about Marco. I've had editors trting to use the Tropical Cyclone article as a source that a Tropical Storm is a Hurricane/Tropical Cyclone when they can't explain anything why they think that it is when I have here. The only source I could find was an NOAA warning that said it could be the smallest system but it's no longer available and could be doesn't make it fact anyway and the only other sources are forums which are not classed as reliable. I feel the anything in the article stating that it's the smallest should be left out until it can be proven with verifiable and reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well I do know nothing about the topic. It would appear that this is an issue of reliable sources. If I am reading it correctly, you say there is no source for a particular meteorological definition. Other people are saying it can be sourced to a Wikipedia article. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so an external source would be needed. I see some google links at that discussion, but can't judge their reliability off-hand. You might try asking for help at the Sources Noticeboard since they deal with more general things like this. You also might try seeing if there is a non-web source like a university database or print journal that could provide a better definition to this event(say a newspaper clip from that era). MBisanztalk03:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. :) I've found one reliable source which states could be and not it was but issue is it's clearly OR being added to the articles.
According to the National Hurricane Center Marco "could be the smallest tropical cyclone on record." It may briefly reach hurricane intensity before coming ashore on the southeast coast of Mexico later today.[36]
Hmm, I'm way out of my league at this point, and very sleepy. If you want to wait for me to wake up and look at it, that's fine, but you are probably better off at WP:RSN or WP:NORN. MBisanztalk04:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)`
Just letting you know that WP:RELIST has recently been updated to say that AFDs with more than one or two contributors should generally not be relisted. There's no point changing this one but you might take a moment to read over the new process for future reference. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)
Hey there MBisanz! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!
Hello, i understand the deletion of this article but is it possible to still get it userfied? I'm sure in the coming months it will have sufficient secondary sources and certain items that are considered advertisment removed, so i want to keep working on it out of the full wikipedia, but in my user space. Thanks for any of your help MikelZap (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, when we get more items for it i'll add and have some of the gaming crew look at it to make sure it is wikipedia ready.MikelZap (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
New User: Free to good home
Hello. I am a new user seeking to be adopted. I have used sites similar to this one, but this one is a bit more complex and I don't know where to begin.
Thanks
Macrowave (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You closed both of these as delete. I wish that the other people who commented in the discussion had read the articles after I edited them. I tried really hard to make both articles neutral and to establish the notability of both publications. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand your frustration. One method I have seen is to contact users favoring deletion after the article has been improved asking them to change their votes. That can sometimes significantly shift the consensus towards a Keep. MBisanztalk20:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't... has it been set to mod only view or something? I seriously only see it when I click on the October 9th part...JJJ999 (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yea, it looks pretty solid, I'll tidy it up tonight, add in any templates/coding, and then start figuring out a way to propose it. Excellent idea I should add. MBisanztalk18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Goes On (The Article)
Hi MBisanz, in regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Goes On (The Article), this has been closed off as "no concensus". I believe this is an incorrect closure, and would ask you to revisit the closure for me. What we have here is an article which was printed and then retracted by the publisher. This is a common occurrence in the media world. The supposed notability comes from a date which was mentioned in the article, and which was the reason for it being publicly retracted and reprinted with correct dates. Whilst the article itself may be a source for 2008 South Ossetia War, the article itself is not notable in terms of what wikipedia is. We are not a newswire, nor are we a webhost (which is in regards to the images of the article (which are a very possible copyright violation mind you). We have the article creator himself declaring on the 2008 South Ossetia War talk page that the article is now on WP, due to it no longer being available on the website or via Google cache. WP is not an archive. There were a couple of keep votes calling for further expansion of the article. The only further expansion of the article that would be possible would be to use it as a WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK to prove a view that is not widely held. Regardless, this belongs on 2008 South Ossetia War and related articles, it does not require an article of its own. If you refer to Wikipedia:News articles, which is an essay not policy, but still a firm basis upon which to use, it states:
Note: Where a single news wire story or press release has been used by several news publications, this should only be counted as a single source in all notability discussions. Likewise, when reporters base their information off other news coverage (for example, "AP reported that ..."), the coverage is only a single source. Such derivative reports are not independent of each other and can not be used to verify each other. However, if multiple mainstream news outlets do independent reporting on a single event, this is independent coverage.
As the sources quoted merely mentioned this article, this is derivative reporting, and if we follow that essay, they are not independent of each other and can't be used to verify each other. There has been no independent reporting of this article, and where it has been mentioned, it has been done so in the context of 2008 South Ossetia War. Media outlets quote other media outlets on a regular basis, this is what media outlets do.
WP:NOT#NEWS is a very firm policy, and the AfD needs to be looked at upon that basis. Not upon the basis of editors who have basically stated opinion only with no policy. So I would ask for this to be looked at again, and please advise me accordingly. Cheers --RussaviaDialogueStalk me10:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I've re-reviewed my close and still cannot see a consensus in any direction with regard to what should be done with that article. It seems several editors differed in their interpretation of the notability guidelines and voiced their opinion accordingly. MBisanztalk19:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
GEOBOT
Hi Bisanz. Fritzpoll and I would like to rename the bot from User:FritzpollBot to User:GEOBOT as a bot for the project and would also take away some pressure directly on him being responsible. COuld you take care of this and sort it out with BAG and request, or move it yourself? The Bald OneWhite cat12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
BAG doesn't do bot renames, only bureaucrats do those at WP:CHU. Any approvals he had as FrizpollBot would carry over to a new name without any need for BAG (or me) to do anything. MBisanztalk12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of List of Standalone OBD-II Scan Tools
Hi, may I please courteously invite you to take a second look at the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Standalone OBD-II Scan Tools to delete the article List of Standalone OBD-II Scan Tools and related articles? The deletion debate amounted to just one question: "Is this article a link farm or a stand alone list?". Link farms look like this: [37]. Lists look like this: [[38]]. Hence the articles you deleted are not, imo, link farms. It is true that they have external links, but that is inevitable in such a list.
If there was advertising involved in some of the items on the list it should, of course, be removed - but the lists themselves are (were) valuable.
Perhaps I should clarify that my interest is purely as a user of OBD-II to keep my car running - I have no connection with any program writer, and only wish there was more open source OBD-II software.
Thanks for reviewing the close, sorry you did not agree with me. I don't want to do the whole WP:DRV thing since I am not interested in the other articles - so could you please put a copy of the List of OBD-II Cables & Scanning Software article into my workspace and I will have a look to see if a good article can be salvaged from it. Thanks, Springnuts (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello MBisanz. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗23:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to understand why you closed this deletion discussion as no consensus. There are three !votes for deletion from established editors, and one !vote for keeping it. One additonal delete !vote is from an IP, and two "Don't Delete" !votes are from SPA's. Can you share your reasoning? I'm not thinking I disagree sufficiently to take this to DRV, but it seems like a case of a clearly self-promotional article getting an undeserved reprieve. BTW, the AfD tag is still on the ANGEL Learning page. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I did read this carefully before closing. You commented to delete based on notability, Quartermaster commented to delete based on advertising, MichaelQSchmidt said delete unless it was trimmed, TheFezOn (a spa) argued it was notable citing several facts, the IP said it was not notable and to delete, Dcapitald said keep based on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Tan said there was some notability. This did not appear to me to create a clear consensus in any direction, although if it had been voiced by someone at the debate, I might have closed it as a redirect to eLearning. I hope that explains my reasoning. MBisanztalk00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt and thorough explanation. Out of curiosity, what would have prompted a relisting, instead of a no consensus close? Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
If Tan hadn't commented at the end, I wouldn't have felt enough comments from established users to make a clear call. MBisanztalk00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you have deleted the article Qantas Flight 72 following an AfD debate. Could you please comment on your reasons? There were many arguments on both sides, and I suspect more than "The result was delete" is needed. I'm surprised the result was not "no consensus". Thanks, WWGB (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Okey, to expand the read each comment and weighted it based on how well it cited to policy and guidelines. I found the deletion votes citing notability and NotNews to be more convincing than the keep arguments that cited OtherStuffExists. Also I discounted the keep vote by the random IP and noted that one of the keep votes even stated that the article probably failed the notability criteria. MBisanztalk07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, did you note, when reviewing whether to delete the article, that most of the votes for 'Delete' stated that it should be 'Deleted' because 'It Was Clear Air Turbulence'? This argument was actually speculation, and every Delete vote bar 1 or 2 used this argument. In fact the latest reports from the investigation (added to the article *after* the AfD votes...) state a computer failure causing the plane to take two seperate nose-dives - causing 14 serious injuries, and 70 total injuries (maybe 1/4 of all the people on the plane had an injury, and nearly 10% were seriously injured). Buckethed (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did notice that (the subsequent addition of information) and weighed the responses to it in interpreting consensus; no I did not review or make a judgment on whether or not it met the notability guide, just whether or not consensus pointed towards the article meeting it or not. MBisanztalk08:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
OK! The consensus was 'Delete it, because it was caused by Clear Air Turbulence, and 'it was not Qantas' fault'. From skimming the AfD / looking at what was said, I fully understand why you deleted it, the problem was that the 'Delete' votes cited original research (as no-one knows what caused the event, which is an 'Aviation Accident' according to the ATSB), and also had a degree of Qantas apologism particularly on stating that the article should be deleted because it wasn't Qantas' fault. The final issue is that the AfD was out-of-date (as it was a premature AfD) so even if it had been borderline notable when the votes were 'cast' it was actually fully notable by the time it got deleted. No harm is done though; I have a copy on my computer and will look back at the topic in a few weeks and see if notability has changed :) Buckethed (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
"'Delete' votes cited original research" Really? I take offense from that as you're saying myself (Including others) cited OR. So the media reports on clear air turbulence can't be used? As I said in the AFD we can come back to it when the ATSB releases it's report in 30 or so days time to see if it's notable in terms of the cause. Media has also stated the injuries was caused due to people not wearing a seat belts. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to cause offense; I might have the wrong definition of OR! All I meant was that lots of votes basically said 'Delete : this was turbulence, which is common, no-one died, therefore not notable'. I suppose it was more speculation than original research, when I think about it. Seatbelts : there will always be people without seatbelts (cabin crew, and the queue of people using the loos!) Buckethed (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The ATSB has just had a media conference (with an accompanying release here) to "coincide with the release of an Operators Information Telex/Flight Operations Telex, which is being sent by Airbus to operators of all Airbus aircraft". The crux of the situation is that they have confirmed a fault occurred within the Number-1 Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU 1). The release goes on to note the significant consequences of the fault and notes that the Airbus Operators Infomration Telex "foreshadows the issue of Operational Engineering Bulletins and provides information relating to operational recommendations to operators of A330 and A340 aircraft fitted with the type of ADIRU fitted to the accident aircraft. Those recommended practices are aimed at minimising risk in the unlikely event of a similar occurrence. That includes guidance and checklists for crew response in the event of an Inertial Reference System failure." The notability of this accident I'm guessing should now be beyond question. Would you reconsider your deletion of the article or should this go through the Deletion Review process? It would be very much easier to establish a detailed article based on the deleted article rather than starting from scratch, particularly with a view to trying to focus on NPOV and avoid any hype that may exist in media reports. -- Rob.au (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I would now support a weak keep (I'm waiting for the full report before I change to support a Strong Keep) in light of what has come out and think a section in both the Qantas and Airbus article. Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Qantas Flight 72. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
criteria for deletion
I'm just wondering, what is the criteria for deleting an article put up for discussion for deletion. Is it the majority vote? Or is it judging the article for its own worth? (Masculinity (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC))
When an article is put up for deletion and discussed, the participants in the deletion debate judge the article on its worth/merits. When an uninvolved administrator closes a deletion discussion, they weigh the merits of the comments put forward, giving weight to factors such as the number of users basing their !vote on a particular factor, etc. MBisanztalk07:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
terraserver-usa.com
If you have a chance, please comment here, where I reference an image that you uploaded. If confirmed, I think I just found my new favorite website. Thanks. -- Suntag☼14:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi... I just wanted to let you know that I've listed this article in the deletion review section, because I feel editors are blatantly ignoring Wikipedia's own criteria for notability when deciding whether or not to keep this article, simply because they have not personally heard of this band. It is very disappointing that regardless of how many criteria an article satisfies, it is still denied posting simply because personal bias is getting in the way of actual guidelines. It would be amazing to see Wikipedia actually follow its own rules and post articles that satisfy their guidelines, rather than just seeing a select few of administrators abusing their power and monopolosing the content. Dogma inc (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
AfD for List of private-use airports in California
Hi. I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of private-use airports in California with the comments "The result was delete." However, by my count six users voted to keep (Squidfryerchef, Paul McDonald, Coccyx Bloccyx, Gateman1997, Ecoleetage, Will Beback) but only four voted to delete (Ikluft, Zyxw, Stifle, SheffieldSteel). Therefore it seems to me the result should have been either keep or no consensus. I'm not inclined to request a deletion review since I voted to delete it; I'm just trying to understand how you made your determination. Thanks. -- Zyxw (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well firstly I didn't notice Ikluft had voted twice, so I was going on a 5/6 vote count. Speaking to detail, I was swayed by the policy cites by the delete votes and the discussion over the relative lack of notable material in the article. The keep votes said the article met list criteria but seemed unable to produce policy cites to back up their position. It was on the border of No Consensus/Delete, but I felt it was far enough in the delete range based on the weight of the arguments. MBisanztalk14:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I often end up writing strings of new articles, one leading to the next. I had made a significant expansion to the article for the Sony Building which led me to realize that there was none for 195 Broadway. It meets DYK minimums, but it still has room for expansion. It would be my privilege to accord you the honor of adding an infobox. I know you have written articles for other AT&T facilities, and I'm still shocked that this most gorgeous building -- both the exterior and the lobby -- had never been the subject of an article. Alansohn (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you just reverted some vandalism on the Billy Mays page. I think you missed that it was a case of double vandalism, and the page you reverted to is itself loaded with vandalism. Unfortunately I do not yet have the vandalism reversion tool, so I can only revert to the previous edit. There is too much vandalism in the current page for me to do it by hand. So if you get a chance could you check it out again? Thanks! Mantisia (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, Ale_Jrbtalk20:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The Incredible Adventures of Captain Taylor
Just out of curiosity, what CSD criteria did you apply when you speedy close/deleted the AFD? I've seen G3 applied to obvious hoaxes but I wasn't 100% certain that article was a hoax so I AFDd it as a WP:V issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I applied the speedy based on the large number of comments at AFD. It needed more input and probably could've been a PROD, if I had to nail down a CSD I'd say {{db-reason|Blatant hoax}} :) MBisanztalk22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Rfa Spam
Thank you for your support on my RFA, which recently passed unanimously. Unfortunately, you have been indefinitely blocked for because of your jokes about my age. Only joking, thank you for your support, i promise i will try not to let you all down, come find me on my talk page if you ever need my help with anything --Jac16888 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion here. I was recently part of an AE case and was subject to the remedies outline here a WP:1RR on all Troubles Articles, applyed to all Editors of those Articles. This was amended as you will have noticed by an additional amendment at AE here. Now since then I do not believe that I have breeched sanctions. I been extremely polite, civil, and have been in no way disruptive. With this is mind, could you possibly point to me:
Were is the edit war which prompted the page to be blocked. Please bear in mind the article is under WP:1RR.
Show me, by way of diff’s what and were I have done something which warrants a Page/Troubles ban?
On the talk page, could you show me were I may have been uncivil or disruptive in your opinion?
On the Article, could you show me by way of diff's were I may have breech sanctions or been disruptive in your opinion.
I think it only right and proper, and in the intrest fairness, that to defend myself I should first know what it is I’m supposed to have done, do you not agree? There is not much of a talk page to go through, and my edits were very limited. Thanks in advance, --Domer48'fenian'20:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you reply here it was appreciated. Now in light of this responce here and my responce here would you consider reviewing your support for a topic ban of me. Based on the fact that it not supported by the diff's you provided. Thanks for your considered responce, --Domer48'fenian'14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x]15:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure it will work well. While the nom may be a SPA who didn't attempt to save the article, the crowd at the AFD seems quite clear in favor of deletion. Your only hope would be reverting back to the earlier version and trying to sway some of the voters to change their opinion. MBisanztalk00:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Any chance you can grant me rollback? I would only use it in clear cases of vandalism. This happens from time to time on lists and tables that I've maintained. Thanks. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you still intend to be active at the account creator tool on the toolserver? We're suspending accounts that aren't used for over 45 days in the interest of best practice. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Did you see the edit summary? Have you ever seen something less believable than that? I studied psychology for a while back in college, and, judging by Angry Shoplifter's mannerisms: They are not female. And why would AOM only just realise he was blocked now? It's almost like theatre! ScarianCall me Pat!23:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
We have a huge back log of French commune articles to add the infoboxes from French wikipedia Status check. All that needs doing is copying the infobox directly from the French wikipedia equivalent. Please see Vulaines. All that needs doing for each article is cutting and pasting the infobox from French wiki into every article which must be bot compatible. So for Vulaines all it requires is pasting the infobox into it from here and pasting it into the english wiki article. COuld somebody please programme a bot or use some form of coding to help complete the task in hours rather than months? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I wondered if you could explain this AfD to me, as this is a site with no notability at all which was just created last month. A few fans might have voted 'keep' but they didn't say anything to back up their opinion that it is notable. Such a thing would be impossible. [40]StickyParkin23:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
TrackZero did not appear to be a spa and did present a detailed argument on it. If someone had mentioned it, a redirect to Evil Avatar would probably have been the closest thing to consensus, but no one did, so I did not feel comfortable in closing that way. MBisanztalk00:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
After researching it further, I'm nearly certain that this is not yet notable, has not yet opened, and is not predictable in the crystal ball. The article was created in 2005, and has had no substantive additions since then. The Weatherford, Texas Railroad Museum is not the museum that the author had in mind. The Museum of the American Railroad (formerly the Dallas Railway Museum) isn't it, because it was in existence before 2005. Googling for "texas railroad museum" "fort worth" -wikipedia -"museum and heritage railroad" only returns 11 results, none of which are on point.
I also see that nobody notified User:Simesa, who created the stub in 2005 and is still active as recently as October 5.
Hmmm. That apparently was the wrong way to do it. I've been told that I should instead take it to WP:DRV, and that page suggests that it's often best to "discuss the matter with the admin [you] who ... made the decision" because of "significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." Your thoughts? Travisl (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm at a loss here, you presented a valid rationale at AFD_2 and people seem more concerned with the time period than with the facts you are presenting. I really can't figure out where you went wrong. Bizarre. MBisanztalk20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Emmalina
You obviously took no notice of the final outcome of this. There were requests for mergers, redirects and a request for userfication which you simply ignored. Why is it that moderators can't even do their job properly at closing an AfD sufficiently? Shame on you. (Reply here). JRG (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
In a more polite way then JRG, I also think that was a bad closure. A one line close is not sufficient, given the shocking amount of bad opinions in the debate that supported delete. Notability is simply not temporary and does not fade away, too many people are going to continue to think that is the case if you don't correct them in the closure, even if you deleted the article for another perfectly valid reason (i.e. never having had any notability). As for BLP1E in the event of one notable event, for this case it specifically ratifies a merge result, not delete, as the events reached RS and the term Emmalina needs to point somewhere. Some people in there simply don't seem to get that you can't subsequently redirect a deleted article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
There were 11 deletes from established users citing things like BLP1E and transient notability, 1 userfy, 1 merge, 1 weak keep, and 1 keep. There were no votes to redirect. Since it was a BLP I am not willing to userfy on my own, but another admin may be willing to. I do not see any other way it could have been closed. MBisanztalk22:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
How can a rationale be delete per BLP1E when BLP1E specifically states that merge or redirection (they are one and the same end result) are the better option when there are sources. And none of the delete voters questioned the existence of sources. Look at for example, Pwnage8, his rationale contradicts itself precisely through the wording of BLP1E. And notability is not transient ever, either it is established and remains, or it never was. Whether users think the event is remembered/will be remembered/they knew about it is completely irrelevant, but these appeared time and again as delete votes. At least YellowMonkey got it half right, after stating that "nobody caring about the subject in 2/3 years is a valid deletion reason, you can at least take from his "nn" at the end that he deems she never was notable (although again his argument is weakened by comparing like for unlike, such as news coverage of car crashes). There are also seriously flaky opinions like 'the event must be huge' to be notable etc. Several people don't even seem to know the difference between a meme and a celebrity. And with deletion and not redirection, there is now a sourced redlink in List of YouTube celebrities, which makes it look like Wikipedia's left hand doesn't know what its right is doing. These are basic errors that should not be being endorsed by never pulling up 'established users' when they make them time and again at Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not sure how I could have come to any other conclusion with 11 people saying delete and 3 saying not delete and all having good faith reasons for what they were saying. MBisanztalk00:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
By weighing opions against policies, and keeping/disregarding accordingly. Ultimately, apart from general numbers, I am essentially asking what was the actual determination here, that she was never notable, that notability did not extend beyond routine news coverage, or that there was a notable event but delete per BLP1E as there exists no valid target for redirection - which if you read the 1E policy can be the only way a delete per BLP1E makes any sense at all. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The determination was the the community did not want an article on her. AFD admins do not rule on the content itself (whether or not she was notable), just if the community wants the article kept or not. MBisanztalk01:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't ask what your personal opinion of it was, I was, being fully aware of the impartial nature of Afd closure practice, asking what the specific policy based reasoning was judged to be behind the community voice, beyond the general will of the people, misguided or not. Anyway, I'll leave it at that if you don't have the specifics. MickMacNee (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Can I please have the page userfied as I requested? I'm sorry if the above comment sounds harsh but I was genuinely annoyed that you couldn't even bother to respond to me even if you weren't going to userfy the article. I am entitled to have it restored. I found most of the sources and there are more than I don't have time to add to the article. JRG (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
In my first response to this threads I said Since it was a BLP I am not willing to userfy on my own, but another admin may be willing to. I would prefer you ask at WP:BLPN for a copy since I am hesitent to userfy deleted BLP articles. MBisanztalk20:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Undeletion
Hi MBisanz, recently you deleted several images that I had uploaded and are listed here: User talk:TheDJ#Image copyright problem. They were deleted due to lack of Fair use rationales. In my memory they had non-templated, but fully written out FUR's. They may have been lacking in the latest and greatest additions to our evergrowing FU policy, but in my memory nothing that couldn't have easily been fixed. As such, I request they be undeleted so that I can provide them with a nice template and an updated rationale (that will likely not be sufficient in another 2 years, but he....) :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you nominate a lot of these. I was wondering...do you do a search for appropriate targets for the redirects in namespace before you nominate them? It may be a good idea. I've found some good targets for a few of them. (as noted in the RFDs) --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I've thought of that, but since it seems some redirect must be preserved for historical linking reasons, others for historical pagemove reasons, and others because of project agreements, I'm not sure it would be a good idea to go around changing the target without discussion. Like it seems obvious that Oversight is a more important redirect than Wikiproject Orphan articles for WP:O, but RfD decided otherwise. Or CiteYourSourcesDebate, a recent redirect created in 2007 is apparently needed for historical reasons, I'd of redirected it to some research-theory article. AHD system would be an interwiki-redirect if I just went ahead and did it, but RfD disagrees. So I think there is enough disagreement among people acting in good faith that I should use RfD as opposed to just acting BOLDly on my own. MBisanztalk22:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paul Robinett. 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. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Was about to leave a DRV notice here. I understand how you might have felt this should have been closed as "delete," but I feel there should be a deletion review based on the types of arguments presented in the AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Texas Railroad Museum. 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. NE221:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Articles for deletion/Paul Elgin
Hi. I'm curious as to how you arrived at the no concensus decision for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Elgin. It seems to me that the only editors in favour of keeping the article were the article creator, and single purpose accounts. This of course doen;t not rule out their opinions if they are based on sound arguments, but a single magazine interview is the only reference outside of Paul Elgin's web site and myspace. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing it. And also thanks for slugging your way through closing AFDs. I can imagine that's not an easy task. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Now I am curious. How is it that you as a moderator came to a conclusion of "no consensus" for the articles of deletion page for Paul Elgin, and AFTER the fact, another editor questions your decision and you revert your decision to DELETE, without notifying the author, or conducting a DELETION REVIEW? I don't understand what is going on here. Your orginial decision was right, there was no clear consensus in the debate, as there were users (besides myself, the author) that voted in favor of KEEPING the page. Additionally, WIKI rules state that deletion debates are not decided by vote tally, and the previous editor above cites that as one of the reasons for you to review your own decision. Also, some of the DELETE comments were unsubstantiated, pointing only to wiki policy but no arguement. We do not believe at all that this is fair.
We have listed below (which I am sure you are well aware of) the wiki guidelines and polices regarding deletions:
Proposed deletion
An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. These pages can be deleted by any administrator if, after five days, nobody objects to the proposed deletion. Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again. This process only applies to pages in the Main namespace (article namespace). Redirects are not eligible for proposed deletion.
Where to find them: A list of all pages flagged for proposed deletion can be found in Category:Proposed deletion, as well as in an automatically generated summary table.
How to do this: Edit the page to add the following text to the top: {{subst:prod|reason=}}, writing your reasoning in the "reason" field.
If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. If an editor still feels the page ought to be deleted, a deletion discussion should be used, as indicated below.
[edit] Deletion discussion
Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussions, the results of which may be reviewed after the fact at deletion review (see below). This includes contested speedy or proposed deletions. Here, editors who wish to participate can give their opinion on what should be done with the page.
These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate.
A nomination that gets little response after five days can be relisted if the closing editor believes that more time would be likely to generate a clearer consensus.
It is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the discussion in order to sway its outcome. Such comments may be ignored. They are not removed, but may be tagged with {{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP., noting that a user "has made few or no other edits". In extreme cases, a deletion debate can be semi-protected.
It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution.
Where to find them: There are separate processes for articles, categories (except stub categories), images and media, redirects, templates (except stub templates and userboxes), stub templates and categories, user categories, and everything else.
How to do this: Follow the instructions at the top of the relevant process page.
If you disagree: Go to the relevant process page and explain why you disagree. Do not remove the tag from the page. For more information on this process, read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.
[edit] Deletion review
If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the admin who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care.
If a page was deleted under Proposed deletion, then it should be immediately undeleted by request. However, it may immediately be brought to WP:AFD.
If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available.
The deletion review process is not decided solely by head count. The review normally lasts for five days, sometimes extended for up to ten if the outcome is unclear.
Overturned deletions may go to a deletion discussion if someone still wishes to delete and chooses to nominate.
When I closed it, I hadn't scrolled down all the way to the bottom because my browser window was open with AIM and not rendering correctly. So I never saw the lower part the conversation. After W pinged me, I went back and re-read it and saw the lower section and re-judged the close based on all of the information. Apologies for the confusing, but it looks like a good close. MBisanztalk13:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Indexing
Hi Matt. I spent a bit time of time searching, couldn't find an answer, and figured you would know. At the moment, which namespaces are (and are not) indexed, and do you know if it's different on other projects? Thanks. Giggy (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
All namespaces except User talk are indexed, certain pages in other namespaces, such as RFAs, XFDs, RFARs, and a couple others are not indexed, either via {{NOINDEX}} or the robots.txt file. I suspect all namespaces on all other projects are indexed, unless that project has asked Brion to not index one or more of them. MBisanztalk01:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is viewable through the above link.
Jossi and MZMcBride are both separately admonished for their conduct in this matter—the Sarah Palin wheel war—and are warned that any future, similar actions are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of their administrator privileges.
The community is strongly urged to continue ongoing discussions at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons regarding how the BLP policy and its enforcement can be further improved.
Additionally, all parties to this case are instructed to review carefully the principles and findings of fact which were also passed in this decision (click to read), and to adjust their conduct and future behaviour accordingly.
Hi Matthew. Do you mind if I inquire about this close? All of the delete comments occurred before I added sources to the article... I would have liked to have seen some comments from editors regarding the additions I had made. Cheers, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Well my basis was that you cited your comments on Oct 16, I closed it on Oct 20, so there were 4 days for the 3 editors who commented before you to review it. It you had commented on the 19th, I might have leaned more towards relisting it, but it is hard to say "he answered their concerns", when "they" haven't spoken. MBisanztalk16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that this was sufficient time for the others to return and review the changes I made, I'm not convinced that they actually did. Knowing TenPoundHammer, for example, it is not like him to leave a comment like "If there was one more source I might say weak keep" and then not follow-up with another comment once more sources are added. In my experience, people generally return with a comment like, "Those new sources don't prompt me to change my mind" rather than just saying nothing. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It would be very odd to relist at this point, seeing how long its been closed, it might be better to take it to DRV with TPH commenting there. MBisanztalk01:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like a little more information about why the page for the Colorado Film School was deleted. I would like to avoid whatever mistakes were made when I create a new page for it.
I would like to keep this template but since I created it in April no one else seems to use it. Instead of deletion maybe it just needs to be put in a category where others can find it. Any suggestions? CubBC (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Done ... NawlinWiki took care of them! :-) — 72.75.117.122 (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
— OranL (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Statest.gif. 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).
.
Bwrs (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
-_Good_pic.jpg)
Oxyman has done another unblock request - on the 20 Sept. 2008. I suggest you protect the page like you said. Rory (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
