User talk:MBisanz/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Email

You've got one, and I'll say now I'm not very happy or impressed. Be more careful in future. Pedro :  Chat  20:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies here as well as those I expressed in my reply. MBisanz talk 21:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sustainable Style

[1]

This one has been re-listed a couple of times (now 3). All of the votes were delete except one. 4 Deletes and 1 keep.

It has been re-listed many times now.

Clearly the article is not a controversial delete after 3 re-listings and no activity/protests/etc.

PeterWesco (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

As of now, you and LibStar were the only ones to evaluate Dennis' sources. I would ideally like a third person to agree they are not sufficient to find for deletion, but I'm likely to find for deletion at the end of this relisting. MBisanz talk 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Understood, I can appreciate your reasoning PeterWesco (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erase (song)

Hi MBisanz, you had deleted the above article after the deletion discussion. I have one small request. Can you please sandbox the contents in my sandbox at User:IndianBio/Sandbox5? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 04:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Pollack delrev

After getting advice from other editors, I started Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_December_9 WhisperToMe (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Robin Fickers jpg

I was curious why this file was deleted. Maryland House of Delegates is not part of the Federal Government. Why does this matter?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The photo was released as a public domain work of the federal government. Clicking its source, it is actually a work of the Maryland state government. The Maryland state government, to the best of my knowledge, has not made all of its works PD in the same way the federal government has. MBisanz talk 05:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense. Thank you  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

BodogFight

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BodogFight (TV series) with delete. Did that also include the alos nominated BodogFight.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting me know. MBisanz talk 15:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Kalayansundaram

You decided this one was a keep. I'm a bit confused by that decision, some of the details on the page just don't add up. However, what I would like to know is details of the previous discussion which decided to delete the page but I don't know how to access. Can you help at all? --4letheia (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There was no prior discussion. I was done as a speedy deletion of a copyright violation, which does not require a discussion. All of the other commenters at the AFD you started thought there were source indicating notability, which is why I closed as a keep. MBisanz talk 16:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thanks for the update, much appreciated. I will continue to outline my concerns on the talk page and leave it up to other editors to raise it again if need be. --4letheia (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of List of programmes broadcast by MediaCorp Channel 8

Hi, just to share with you about my regret towards your recent deletion of the article that I'm watching "List of programmes broadcast by MediaCorp Channel 8". This meant that everything in the article would be totally wiped out, and upcoming programmes would be known when they are promoting the new programme. Hope that you'll understand my intentions. 2679D (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I know it can be frustrating. Some of Wikipedia's rules don't always look like they fit with what the average reader would want, but I appreciate your continued contributions in this area. MBisanz talk 12:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

DC Meetup #33

December 10 is Ada Lovelace's birthday! Not only was she the world's first computer programmer, but also the world's first female open source developer! Come celebrate with Wikimedia District of Columbia at Busboys & Poets for an informal get together!

The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Red Line Chinatown stop and the Yellow Line and Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses.

Kirill [talk] 14:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about Declined Usurpation Request

I recently requested to usurp the name "Truth" on the English Wikipedia. You declined this because "The zhwiki and frwiki accounts would preclude rename.". I am currently using an SUL, but I would prefer to take that name without SUL. If there already exist two cross-wiki accounts on that name, how will a third account affect the SUL conflict? Ninja Wizard (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

At some point, the sysadmins will do a forced unification of all SUL and kick out local accounts that aren't attached. At that time, one of the two accounts presently in conflict will be forcibly renamed to something like "Foo (2)". With that in mind, we try not to create additional SUL conflicts, which will only trigger additional forced renames in the future. MBisanz talk 22:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hansard of the Sarawak

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hansard of the Sarawak. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Also: It is a bit ironic that "contributors" that delete a page get notified of an impending 'undelete'. But for contributors that create a stub and then update a web page such a notification could be tagged WP:CAN.

Leng T'che (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, I'm not seeing a link to the deletion review. Are you sure you created one? MBisanz talk 23:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the DRV link is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 10. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! MBisanz talk 01:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Mixed-martial-arts sanctions

Thanks for the link to the list of past general sanctions; I have no remaining qualms about supporting your proposal. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okey. MBisanz talk 01:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I've refrained from expressing a viewpoint on the sanctions as I feel I'm much too involved and I don't want it to become a war of personality. Hasteur (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style

How do I appeal your decision to merge List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style? -A1candidate (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

First, you come talk to me. Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Second, if you still think it was the wrong decision, you go file a request at WP:DRV. MBisanz talk 18:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Because you simply closed the discussion: "The result was merge to Gangnam Style" without giving a reason (Which isn't wrong, except that most people voting for merge did not even bother giving a reason). Also, it would have been fair to give User:Secret some time to reply to my comment before closing the discussion (just to be fair to him and be fair to me as well) -A1candidate (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It had already been open at least 7 days and the consensus was clear even without Secret's response. It was a merge because people felt it duplicative content-fork. MBisanz talk 18:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There were 2 votes for Keep, 4 for merge - Thats not really a clear consensus. And I explained to another user, the list is being constantly updated and is much bigger than it was. The percentage of duplicated names in the list does not even reach 40% right now -A1candidate (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
1. They still thought it was an unretainable content fork; 2. It's not a straight vote-count, but the result was 5-2 (Sue Rangell, Presidentman, North8000, Gongshow, and Secret opposed retention; you and Cirt supported retention). MBisanz talk 18:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not a democracy. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus — not voting. Gongshow already said his opinion had reflected the list in its past state, the rest of them did not even give a reason other than Sue Rangell who has been deleting all my the articles (which I wrote with so much effort) using the same copy-and-paste reasoning -A1candidate (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the result stands. The people at the AFD were against retention of the article for valid, policy based reasons. MBisanz talk 21:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Captain Wikipedia

Hi MBisanz, I recently came across and editor calling himself Captain Wikipedia. It seems to conflict with Wikipedia's username policy. However, I've subsequently noticed you changed his name to Captain Wikipedia on 23 October. Isn't the name a bit misleading?! Sionk (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it conflicted with policy because there is no official position of Captain on Wikipedia and it seemed intended in the comical sense, like Captain Underpants. MBisanz talk 20:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you should have called him Captain Underpants. I thought Jimmy Wales was 'Captain Wikipedia' ;) Sionk (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

User_talk:Agent00f#Blocked_2

I guess I'm surprised it took that long. The RfC should have ended with that conclusion already. Anyway, thanks: good block. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at Captain Wikipedia!'s talk page.
Message added 07:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Captain Wikipedia! ( T - C - G ) 07:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tangiers International-deletion-needs further looking in to.

Hi, I believe the delete decision on Tangiers International is incorrect. While it may appear that someone was paid to write the article, the references provided were from independent sources(Malta Times, Fijian Independent, UPI) and this article appears to be more than notable considering that the company conducts Private Investigations and are Medical Doctors in War Zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I I also note that Defense Base Act was also mentioned in almost 3 articles. [1] It appears that the actual substance of this discussion was taken off track by the talk page's exposure of a sock pocket. That sock puppet fever continued throughout the discussion. By the time I had joined the discussion, post sock puppet fever, my comments were immediately accused of being sock puppet. The talk ended with 2 Keeps, including my vote. TalentedMan (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The commenters cited many other reasons besides things related to socking and found the specific assertions of notability to be insufficient. I'm sorry, but I don't think the accusations leveled at your impacted the outcome; they certainly didn't play the deciding role in my close. MBisanz talk 05:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, the commentators did cite notability, however as stated before, true depth of the article was underscored by the sock puppet fever, which led to a bias talk page. At a minimum, this page would have had a chance for a real discussion and actual research, instead of half legged google searches. Depth of understanding of history and current events are imperative to the success of any online literary forum. TalentedMan (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I was just wondering about the article that you have re-listed Rebecca Masterton, could you please tell me what I have to do being an author of this article? How long will it take for the decision on that and who will decide? Thank you! --Lubna Rizvi 15:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)

The discussion will be open probably for another seven days. Someone like me, an uninvolved administrator, will decide it based on the comments submitted. You don't have to do anything, but if you want to respond to concerns people raise at the AFD (if any) and fix the article if they suggest any changes, that would be it. Happy editing! MBisanz talk 17:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

BRFA thanks

Hi, just stopping by to say thanks for the fast approval of SuggestBot's latest BRFA, appreciate it a lot! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Usurption request

Hey, was this[2] the right thing to do? I requested a simple name change, but I guess the name was already taken (but not really used). I don't know what all the acronyms mean or if I'm doing it right. Corporate 23:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was confusing, I think you've got it now. MBisanz talk 12:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup. EdJohnston explained it was probably not a good idea to try to take Corporate, so I submitted for a simple rename to CorporateM. Hopefully that doesn't mess things up with two open, conflicting requests. Corporate 14:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Nope, no problems, I just finished the process. MBisanz talk 14:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC Holiday Party and Wiki Loves Monuments Exhibition

Please join Wikimedia DC and four other local media nonprofits—the National Press Club's Young Members Committee, 100Reporters, IRE and the Fund for Investigative Journalism—in winding down another year with a night of well-mannered frivolity.

The festivities will take place on Friday evening from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM in the Zenger Room on the 13th Floor of the National Press Club, located on 529 14th Street NW, near Metro Center. There will be meat and vegetarian appetizers as well as a cash bar with specially reduced drink prices all night long. In addition, we will be exhibiting the finalists of the Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest at the event.

Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 04:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oversight problem

Hello, MBisanz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware. MBisanz talk 15:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Change of username

Hi MBisanz, my username was successfully changed from OnlyHunkHere to ChetanVengurlekar. But the articles which I've contributed to, doesn't reflect my new username. Instead it shows some random IP which I think might be a security threat for me. Also, if it can be changed to my new username, that'd be great! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyHunkHere (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we can't re-attribute IP edits to accounts. MBisanz talk 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


I don't ask you to change any IPs to my name but the pages which I contributed to as OnlyHunkHere shows an IP instead my new name ChetanVengurlekar. May I know why? Can it be changed to my new name instead of the IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChetanVengurlekar (talk • contribs) 09:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You probably edited while logged out of Wikipedia, meaning it shows your IP instead of your username. It cannot be changed to the new name because of technical limitations in the system. MBisanz talk 12:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007–08 Delta Ethniki

Hi there. I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007–08 Delta Ethniki, and while I don't object against the result, I'm curious what your reasoning behind deleting the article. I mean, when there is five people wanting to delete an article and five people wanting to keep the article, shouldn't you give a rationale when closing a discussion, given that it might aswell has been closed as "no consensus" or "keep? I know it's not a vote, but my impression was that both sides had equally good arguments, and I feel such na even discussion should be closed with a little more explaination than "the result was keep". Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. My reason for deleting it is because most of the keep reasons were non-policy rationales such as the age of the article, the effort that went into producing them, or that the person believes they fail the policy but should be kept anyway. MBisanz talk 04:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. But you didn't notice that non of the deleting arguments was based on a policy? :P I don't really object on the result, but as another user also wrote below, when you close a discussion which is not clear-cut it might be wise to write a sentence of explanation instead of just writing "The result of the discussion was X". But you are doing a great job with AfD's, so keep up the good work! Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International sports calendar 2012

Not sue where than cdecision came from? The first delete was undone, theres only one other. And 2 keeps and 2 mergers. (Lihaas (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)).

Presidentman's keep rationale involved the assertion that it was useful. That isn't a policy-based reason for retention. The delete commenters and merge commenters were against retention and the content is preserved through a merge. MBisanz talk 18:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Truly on top of the WP to see someone use rationales for decisions (and an admin (?) at that). Kudos.
That said though the delete doesnt use any rationale) and the 1 merge doesnt). Anyhoo..(Lihaas (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)).
The deletes and merges do assert that it is duplicative content and that it is content which isn't suitable for separate presentation. MBisanz talk 19:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records)

I'm involved, so I'm not going to run around and use my admin bit on this. You decided the consensus was "merge", but the article it was being merged to is an article it was split from. That means that the history is already preserved in the parent article. The content has been restored, but that leaves us with an article named "List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records)" that consists of a redirect to a subsection of List of best-selling music artists. That's certainly an implausible redirect, and there's no need to keep the underlying history.—Kww(talk) 16:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the school that redirects are cheap; would you mind a protected redirect with the history deleted? MBisanz talk 16:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
No. Given the canvassing problems I've been dealing with today as a result of the continued discussion, I do expect trouble.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I will defer to your experience. Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Futz! is seemingly ineligible for WP:SALT

I would like to request that you remove WP:SALT from Futz!. While I realize the WP:CON in the deletion discussion was to WP:SALT (although only just, 4 – 2, or even 4 – 3 if including the nominator), WP:CON for a single article should not be sufficient to override general WP:POLICY, which states at WP:SALT: "This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated." The article in question was only recreated a single time; furthermore, the article was recreated from scratch and by a different user, which may in fact not count as recreating it for this purpose. Finally, WP:ADMINs should exercise strong discretion when applying measures beyond simply deleting an article as a result of a deletion discussion, something implied at WP:ADMIN: "If you are granted access, you must exercise care in using these new functions, especially the ability to delete pages and to block users and IP addresses." There is also the issue of some participants in the discussion apparently not being aware of WP:POLL, but I suppose I digress.

Besides the issue of eligibility, WP:SALT should be removed because a redirect could be created (for example, to 9 Story Entertainment, the show's production company). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was strongly against retention; none of them mentioned a redirect as a compromise to wholesale deletion. Given the strength of opinion, I would be opposed to exercising my discretion to override consensus and permit a redirect. MBisanz talk 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Both the nominator and one other discussion participant mentioned redirecting as an alternative. And again, in the case of WP:SALT (as opposed to the deletion itself), WP:CON barely even existed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
My apologies, I hadn't looked back at the discussion since closing it. What would you say to a protected redirect? MBisanz talk 18:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I would agree, except that there should be a (perhaps lengthy) time limit instead of indefinite protection, because the redirect could require unforeseen changes in the future and I've previously had an issue with a user no longer being a WP:ADMIN and thus having to go through WP:DELREV - which isn't exactly a cakewalk and could thus be a strong impediment to many WP:USERS to make even a minor change. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I stuck in a locked redirect to List of Teletoon Original Productions, which was mentioned at the AFD and given it a 5 year expiry. MBisanz talk 18:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you change it to redirect to 9 Story Entertainment? It was also mentioned in the discussion (by the nominator) and seems more appropriate in this case, since some discussion of the show could potentially be added to the production company's article, while the current redirect is to a list, where doing so would be more difficult. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the discussion was firmly against the retention of content on the show, so I'm not inclined to extend my discretionary redirect to permit reinclusion of the content in another article. MBisanz talk 19:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the discussion was regarding WP:GNG. This means that the discussion in no way whatsoever precludes discussing the show in another article. This does not, of course, mean that things like episode lists should necessarily be included in an article on a production company, but that has virtually nothing to do with WP:GNG: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but answer remains no. The only discussion on an actual redirect target involved links to the list, not links to the company. That leaves the options as a redlink or a redirect to the list. The list also happens to be a plausible target for a show that is not notable enough to have its own article. MBisanz talk 20:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"The only discussion on an actual redirect target involved links to the list, not links to the company." - again, this is incorrect: "I am suggesting deletion or redirection to the article on the production company." - this was written by the nominator. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
He didn't actually link to the article you want it pointed to, so it's unclear if he meant your article or the article on the production company's productions (i.e. the list). MBisanz talk 21:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Teletoon is a channel, not a production company. It is therefore quite clear that the nominator meant 9 Story Entertainment. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I've still concluded that to the extent there was any support at the AFD for a redirect, there was greater support for a redirect to the list of shows and not the production company. MBisanz talk 21:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Close AfD?

I noticed you just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.R. Bronco (which was set up by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, by the way). Is it possible to have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NYU-Poly research and research centers closed, too? It was opened ten days ago. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 19:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! 72Dino (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

BostonFenian change of username

Could you address my request to change username at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#Username_change_request please? I think you might have overlooked the request, which I posted on 12 December 2012. Thanks BostonFenian (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 00:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Take care Direct action (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highest-grossing films in overseas markets

With regards to the merge decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highest-grossing films in overseas markets, with all due respect no-one actually responded to my point about the List of highest-grossing films being global data. I think this point should have been discussed further, since why should we merge US export data into an article about worldwide data? Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as it was not relisted, I'll give the benefit of the doubt. I've reverted my close and relisted. MBisanz talk 00:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Mount Druitt

Was it really necessary to relist this in the logs? Apparently three editors addressing the sourcing as poor and a keep !voter using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was not enough to mandate deletion. Jeez. Till 03:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that a new editor has brought a new opinion to the table since I relisted, I don't think it was an unreasonable relist. MBisanz talk 03:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It was an unnecessary relist, and the fact that another editor has commented on it after its relist has no effect on the fact that is was unnecessary. I as the nominator address the concerns of no significant coverage in reliable sources, clearly a valid reason for deletion. One editor asserts that sources may exist without providing any evidence or bringing any forward, and bases his argument on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; no weight can be given to that. A delete !voter cites the sources about crime as insufficient to satisfy notability guidelines which gives even more reason to delete the article. The second delete voter reiterates this statement and says that there is no indepth coverage of the topic. The delete !votes outweighed the "keep" significantly and this article should therefore have been deleted and not relisted. The new commenter's opinion holds no weight either, as it doesn't address the article's notability in any shape or form which is why the discussion was initiated. They also don't acknowledge that a redirect is unnecessary due to the article getting as little as one view in a day. Till 04:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I think the decision to relist was a good one. What's the rush? --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There is not a rush. This was an unnecessary relist and I have provided my rationale for that above. Till 04:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Help please

Can I please have some help with JonnyBonesJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please, he has a bad case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT with regard to the use of Flags at List of current UFC fighters, I have pointed him to both the MOS:FLAGBIO and the RFC on it WT:MMA#RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG but he just reverts and repeatedly accuses me of WP:VAND both in edit sums and now at my talk page. Mtking (edits) 05:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The proposal at AN hasn't passed yet, so I'm hesitant to intervene until such time as it passes and I can operate under the normal admin enforcement model. If it's a regular violation of policy, you might just throw up a request at AN. MBisanz talk 06:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I had a chance to look into this. That's an unacceptable use of the warning tool. MBisanz talk 06:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding MBisanz. But I warned MtKing for vandalism because of his removal of sourced material about Mark Hominick's retirement on that page. I felt that was vandalism and content removal and dealt with it accordingly. I also feel MtKing has made alot of bad faith pointy edits and AFD nominations, and I'm not the only one who believes that. I feel MtKing also has wrongfully used warning templates on me, accusing me of personal attacks when I did not do anything of the sort. And also accusing me of breaking the 3RR rule, which I did not do. It is clear he is biased against MMA on wikipedia, and has harassed MMA editors and abused his status many times on this site, which is not good for wikpedia, seeing as how they are asking for donations right now. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for reality check: Hi MBisanz, as you may have seen, I posted this an WP:AN in response to a posting of JonnyBonesJones. He then posted this thread at my talk page. I am not having a good day and would appreciate an objective reality check... was what I posted at AN inappropriate, or a personal attack? I am not seeking any administrator intervention, I just want to know if my judgment is so far off that I am today unable to recognise inappropriateness in my own actions. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I was offended that you said I was unwise and yes i took it as a personal attack. Maybe you would have a better day if you were more respectful to people and kept your opinions you make about other people behind your computer to yourself. What you said had nothing to do with the AfD. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Ed, you're fine. I would've posted the same thing and probably have in similar circumstances. It was all good advice and I advise you to keep giving it in the future when you see it is useful. MBisanz talk 17:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, MBisanz, I appreciate your feedback and encouragement. Looking at user talk:JonnyBonesJones, it looks like my advice fell on deaf ears.  :( EdChem (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Internet urban legends

Hi MBisanz, could you read my comment at Talk:Internet urban legends on a deletion discussion you just closed? Sorry I didn't get there in time to comment in the discussion itself. Thanks! --Noiratsi (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi : )

I just wanted to clarify something which I think you know, but decided I shouldn't presume.

I think you do amazing work in general, and I think that the proposal is well intended.

So I didn't want you to ever think that my comments are in any way adversarial towards you.

I just look around and see so much entrenchment and needless "rules" continually building up around various wikipedia processes when, if we toss the unnecessary process, we don't need the "party of the first part..." type rules : )

Setting aside for the moment whether you'd support it or not, what would you suggest as a "next step" to eliminate the arbcom elections, to replace with the consensual process? - jc37 00:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The next step to eliminate the elections by replacing them with a consensus process would be to figure out what you mean by consensus. The actual meaning of the word consensus as applied in my real-life experiences is that no one disagrees with the agreed upon outcome. That doesn't mean they agree with it, merely that they don't disagree so much as to dissent. Consensus on Wikipedia means a different thing and does permit a vocal minority opposition to remain after a decision has been made. Figure out if you want a consensus that reflects net agreement on the candidates or greatest support for the candidates or least objection to the candidates. Once you figure that out, it'll become easier to think of how to get there. MBisanz talk 19:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Magic's list of characters ?

Why did you do this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.36.23.123 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering characters: A MBisanz talk 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(20692) 1999 VX73 & (20694) 1999 VT82

Hi M - There were two identical articles with two nearly identical AfD discussions, but with different outcomes. I believe that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/(20692)_1999_VX73 should also have ended in a redirect to List_of_minor_planets:_20001–21000--Nixie9 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, I had to click back and forth there a few times because it didn't make sense to me, but none of the from VT82 saying redirect didn't show up at VX73 in the same force, so it split the decision. I've reverted my close and relisted it to see if that happens with an additional week. MBisanz talk 16:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Results

People is getting impatient. I left an answer to someone in WT:ACE2012 that results should be given away before December 20, 2012. I guess that it is an accurate date, doesn't it? Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 04:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That date sounds accurate. I'm nudging things as much as I can on my end. MBisanz talk 16:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at The Duke of Waltham's talk page.
Message added 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joakim Mogren‎

Can you clarify your closure statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joakim Mogren‎? Technically, there were two pages listed, but your AfD closure only seems to have been applied to the primary page in that discussion. The AfD tag on the other page was removed by someone else, but it would be good if it AfD closure also addressed it. Probably as 'no consensus' as several of the AfD posts also seemed to ignore the second page, so if someone feels it should be deleted, they probably need to refile a new AfD just for that one page. --67.137.149.122 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting me know. MBisanz talk 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

good move

Was trying to figure out if/how to do that myself without making things worse. NE Ent 20:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Relist query

Hi mate, just wondering what you're looking for with your relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exotic weaponry? I'm sure you had your reasons, but an explanatory note might help - there now seems to be some confusion as to exactly what you're looking to have clarified by consensus. Cheers! Stalwart111 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 22:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks - that should help! Stalwart111 22:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion

If you can, would you just pop in and offer an opinion here [3]. Someone at WP:WER has raised a really interesting idea and we would like someone with some experience to see if this has been discussed, is off base, etc. and I can't think of anyone better to just look at this. Not asking for any hard work, just an educated perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You need a few of these. All on Jimbo, of course. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Thankyou Blofeld" said Bisanz. "I'm now happily drunk and in a state where I'm an even worse 'crat than normal. "♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks buddy! :::renames Dr. Blofeld to "~~"::: MBisanz talk 18:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD

Since you closed Kagura (Azumanga Daioh) as redirect, would you mind looking at ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Mihama‬ and ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayumu Kasuga‬? They both seem to be headed in the same direction. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 17:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Katja Kassin

Hi. I just reverted a good-faith edit because the matter was resolved, with heavy involvement by AnonEMouse, in 2007.

I explained my action on the new editor's page, then went to AnonEMouse's talk page to alert her that a resolved issue might be reviving. I see she's on break and yours was a trusted name I saw on her page, with a recent, unrelated notice.

Would you please keep an eye on the Katja Kassin article, in case BLP trouble arises? Thanks. Best, David in DC (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted and semi'd. TPS, please help me keep an eye out. Thanks. MBisanz talk 03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Post close

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeafChat close - any other opinion/analysis of the discussion? Closers frequently opine - feel free. --Lexein (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, even after relisting it, one commenter thought the sources merely proved it existed and another commenter thought the sources proved it met the notability criteria. Given the lengthy discussion on the sources and participation of several editors, it would appear the community cannot come to a consensus regarding the sources provided. MBisanz talk 20:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Any problem with me copying your response to the close, for posterity? --Lexein (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mona Sikh -> Patit?

Quick query, just wondering how you decided the consensus was for a merge to Patit?

The only person in the AfD discussion who supported/suggested that particular article seems to have a close connection with the subject, and it was my opinion that person finds the subject distasteful, and would prefer to minimize the subject by relegating it to a very bare article concerning a very concise set of religious definitions regarding the group (Mona Sikhs) in question. While that Mona Sikhs might be covered by that definition, that definition does not begin to adequately describe these peoples in terms of society, religion, ethnic culture, etc.: in fact, the Patit article/law/definition seems specifically to EXCLUDE these peoples as being proper members of their society/religion, while the Mona Sikhs themselves would appear to consider themselves Sikhs regardless. The grammar used by the person who suggested that article for the merge indicates they may be of the Sikh group, or a person from that region, and I feel it does both the Mona Sikhs AND the Sikhism article a disservice to have the former be merged into an article which leaves little room for anything other than the legal/religious definition of "Patit": this would be like me suggesting that "Methodist" should be merged to "Heretic {Catholicism)" instead of "Protestantism", where it would more properly belong.

Thank you for your all your time and attention in working on this wiki, as well as for your consideration. besiegedtalk 00:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread the meaning of duplicate in the nomination to be in favor of that. I've gone ahead and re-closed it to point at Sikh. MBisanz talk 00:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
No apologies necessary, and thanks again for your efforts! I'm pretty sure you admins don't get enough thanks in comparison to the grief you get--editing alone these days is like swimming in shark-infested waters--without having to apologize for minor and easily corrected oversights or misunderstandings, though your civility in this is also truly appreciated; have a happy holiday season! besiegedtalk 01:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
:) MBisanz talk 01:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

SST mobile game close

Regarding the deletion of the Starship Troopers: Invasion "Mobile Infantry" page, could you please clarify what prompted this decision? I would like to proffer an argument for its re-establishment.

The commentary on the article didn't seem like it cohesively reviewed or cited the information contained in the article itself, nor did commentators acknowledge the proffered second party sources (which were mentioned in the talk page to no effect). I argue that the deletion was premature.

Most importantly: commentators did not mention deleting other under-referenced portions of the universal canon that are still extent (see the SST board game for a prime example). I view this as slightly reactionary.

Reasons why I feel the article should be re-created: 1. The movie acts as a canonical prequel to the recent "Invasion" film, and (as noted in the article) uses sources from the film itself and leads into its story. Hence the "exists but not notable" argument should be considered moot; it's an official part of the story. 2. Additional press sources for the game are available. 3. The game is notable for being the first mobile game to exist in the franchise's history. While this may sound like a PR point, the cultural significance is irrefutable (consider the related Gundam series in Japan, which drew significant influence from the series). 4. Deletion criterion as offered by certain editors seemed to have a popularity contest-like bent to them; the article remained objective. 5. It stands to reason that popularity alone shouldn't be used as simple grounds for inclusion.

Thanks for your time!

MechaDev (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.133.163 (talk)

I'm sorry, your reasons don't align with policy, as it is generally understood, nor do they align with the comments at the AFD. The article will not be re-created. MBisanz talk 11:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The game is cited multiple times within the other canonical wikipedia entries. Couldn't the article simply have been edited? Again the comments in several cases blatantly ignored the article's text.

MechaDev (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2012 (PST) 216.40.133.163 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the result of the AFD was that editing was not enough and that it needed to be deleted. MBisanz talk 00:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you,

Matt1. I noticed your replies at several places, and wanted to note my appreciation for your time. Especially I wanted to note the wp:bn question. I had noticed a comment or two about someone requesting their bits back, but I hadn't realized it had turned into such an elaborate discussion. All I can say is: that for myself - I do have the utmost faith and trust in you and the other 'Crats. (well, 99% of them anyway). Also on a personal note: I've noticed that when I need a hand with something, YOU are quite often the "Johnny on the spot" guy who lends a hand .. A personal thank you for that as well.

While I'm here, I'd also wish you and yours a most wonderful holiday season. All my best.

  • 1. Or, if you prefer the southeastern US style when addressing a person by their first name, then "Matthew" :-)

— Ched :  ?  16:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I thank you for your continuing contributions to the project and look forward to editing with you in the new year. MBisanz talk 00:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

When you were doing the admin around resysopping...

did you spot this? Any use? --Dweller (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I did. I think I got all useful information out of there, but feel free to prove me wrong. MBisanz talk 00:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't be silly! --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Seeking Advise / Help

Hi MBisanz,

Am Dr. K. Kokula Krishna Hari! I came across many people saying that there was an article at Wiki regarding to me and my organization (Association of Scientists, Developers and Faculties). When I tried checking it, unfortunately it was deleted because the articles were unsourced. Now, I have those article listings in newspapers. Can you advise me how to proceed, as am not an advanced Wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdykkh007 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have sources, you should bring them to WP:DRV. If you don't know how to use DRV, list them here and I will file a request. MBisanz talk 00:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Notifications

For consistency, would you be interested in notifying the former crats of the policy change as stated on BN? Those who have been inactive for more than 3 years have until 2/1/13 to request the bit back before they are required to go through an RfB.—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 01:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 01:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 03:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Palam Kalyanasundaram

Hi I wonder if I might impose upon you for a copy of the article and talk page that was deleted today - I did a lot of research and would like to keep it, I think it is very likely that the page will be recreated very soon. I hope that isn't inconvenient, many thanks. --4letheia (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done at User:4letheia/Palam Kalyanasundaram. MBisanz talk 11:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be a big old pain, but any chance of the talk page too as that had most of the research on discredited claims - many thanks for your prompt response --4letheia (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done MBisanz talk 14:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, many thanks --4letheia (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald Content

Hi, would you mind giving me a copy of the content of the UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald page that was deleted this morning? I'd like to roll that content into the 2012 in UFC omnibus. CaSJer (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed it to you. MBisanz talk 22:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers villains

I'm surprised that this happened, that no one who would regularly edit the article was notified about it, and that it got deleted. I'm assuming it was just a list of every antagonist but I can't be too sure at this point. I find it odd that Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers was chosen as the next article for deletion as it's just a list of characters (and lists I was certain were kept up to other criteria rather than notability; and a "subjective list" is a bit odd way to define it). Would you mind telling me exactly what on the now deleted page was problematic? Was it a list that included every single monster of the day or something? As I've dealt with that on the article currently at AFD and other similar articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed you a copy of the article. The AFD was unanimous for deletion and even had been relisted an extra week. MBisanz talk 17:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I just find it odd that no one bothered to notify any specific WikiProjects. And looking at the deleted page I still don't see why it was deleted. It was a list of the major antagonist characters, but I don't really see any need in arguing for its restoration. I'd just rather not see the more substantially articles get thrown out as it'll set a precedent that's I'm going to inevitably be blamed for by the fandom because I didn't stop it or caused it or who cares.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why other projects weren't notified, maybe ask the nominator? MBisanz talk 18:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Was {{TOKU}} on the talk page?—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it was tagged with {{WikiProject Tokusatsu}} {{WikiProject Fictional characters|class=List}} {{WikiProject Lists}}. MBisanz talk 18:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
How odd.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Barrett.

Thanks for the help with the Barrett images. I'm glad that I FINALLY managed to do it right. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. MBisanz talk 21:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Request clarification of change in resysopping policy

Thank you for placing a notice on my (old) Talk Page about the change in the resysopping policy. At first, I thought that the new policy was that a desysopped admin had to ask for the admin bit back within three years of being desysopped but, after actually going to the RFC and reading the new policy, it seems to me that a desysopped admin could ask for the bit back anytime as long as he was never inactive (as an editor) for more than three years. Thus, in theory, a desysopped admin could make an edit every two years and 364 days and thus maintain the right to ask for the admin bit back indefinitely. Is my new understanding of the policy correct or was I right the first time when I thought that the three year period involved three years of inactivity as an admin (due to being desysopped)? Does the new policy accept a single edit (even to one's own User Page) as sign of activity? Reading the wording of the policy literally, that's the conclusion I came to. However, that seems so incredibly lenient that I figured I should ask to make sure.

My particular case is complicated by the fact that I was an admin under the user name User:Richardshusr but have since changed my username to User:Pseudo-Richard. Thus, you left your notice at User talk:Richardshusr. I almost never use my old account User:Richardshusr and use almost exclusively my new account User:Pseudo-Richard. However, in terms of counting "three years of inactivity", the contributions for Richardshusr show only one edit because the contributions history was moved to the Pseudo-Richard account (coincidentally by you). Thus, before today, it would have appeared that my account had been inactive for almost three years. In fact, I have been very active under the user name Pseudo-Richard.

At this time, I am considering two options: (1) I could just ask for my admin bit back now and slide under the three year deadline (2) I could resume editing at least sporadically under the old username Richardshusr to keep the three year deadline out in the future. It is NOT my intent to game the system. I am NOT attempting to wikilawyer the policy. I just want to understand what the policy is and also get a bit of advice as to how certain tactics might be perceived. If I would be perceived as gaming the system by keeping the three year deadline at bay through making sporadic edits, then I will rule out that approach.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

--Richardshusr (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Your reading is correct. One edit ever 2 years, 364 days would retain eligibility to request resysopping. Also, it applies to the individual, so as long as you continued to edit under User:Pseudo-Richard, the eligibility (and inactivity rules which deny eligibility) would apply to that account. My apologies for the confusing sequence of notifications. Presently, you are eligible to request resysopping through December 22, 2015. While editing once during that period of time would satisfy the rules, it probably would be perceived as gaming. My advice would be to just keep editing, request resysopping if you think the admin tools would help you edit, and otherwise set a Google Calendar alarm for 2015 just in case you take a long absence. I should also note that the standard rules apply, so even if it is within the three year period, a crat might deny resysopping if it appears the admin resigned because of bad conduct or socking or the like. MBisanz talk 07:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

User Ligulem

Thanks for your notice. I'm a bit surprised to read that I had been desysopped. I can't remember having seen any notice of this. Of course it's true that I have been inactive, but I'm still pretty surprised not having gotten any notice of desysopping? I can't even find anything to that effect in user rights log. I of course am not up to whatever the current rules and procedures are and might be missing something. Back when I got my admin bits, it was a big deal to get them. I'm indeed currently thinking of if it would be worth trying not to definitely loose them and what needs to be done in order to keep them. After all, I think I was in good standing when I stopped editing. Thanks for your help. Ligulem (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Want my account back!

Hey, whatever you did caused my account history, talk page and watch list to disappear. I want them back. Crock81 (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I renamed you as you requested to Crock8. Please log into that account using your old password. MBisanz talk 18:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I never requested such a thing from you or anyone, and I don't have a password for that account, which is why a new one Crock81 was created. Immediately reverse your action which led to the deletion of my Crock81 Talk page, watchlist and contribution history. Crock81 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You requested it here. MBisanz talk 03:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
As an administrator you should have KNOWN and EXPLAINED the effect it was going to have on my account. You are IRRESPONSIBLE. I want my account back, or I will lodge a formal complaint against you. Crock81 (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Had this not been Wikipedia with its 'civility' rules, I would say very many things you would not like to hear, very very many... You should list yourself as a bot, not a human being, because you just acted to execute a command without ANY consideration of the effect on me Crock81 (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I've undone the rename. Please do not file requests, for renames or otherwise, in the future without actually understanding what you are requesting. You are responsible for understanding what you are asking other people to do for you. MBisanz talk 06:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I am NOT an administrator! How am I supposed to understand the effects of YOUR action when the only hint written in less than plain English is "The account you want to usurp should have no edits or significant log entries to qualify for usurpation (though rare exceptions are made in some circumstances, such as to resolve SUL conflicts)."
You may consider pointing out to whoever that the article Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations contains a section Plain English warning to expecting users that explains the EFFECTS of usurpation so they may not blindly trust an admin. 220.238.42.127 (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
My talk page remains deleted. Is this permanent? Crock81 (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I found and recovered your talk page. It's assumed if you ask for your name to be changed to a new name that you mean you want everything associated with your old name copied to your new name. What other meaning of the word "rename" did you understand it to indicate? MBisanz talk 07:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm also unclear how you could have read the warning at Wikipedia:Changing_username#Must read and not understood the effect of a rename. MBisanz talk 07:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is what I thought would happen. A) My edits previously with Crock8 would change to say Crock81, b) I would be asked if I want to add the Crock8 watchlist to the Crock81 watchlist.
Frankly I didn't give it much thought because I could not imagine that any action would blank my talk page and delete my logged contributions since these are used for diffs later. I had made relatively few edits as Crock8, so didn't mind loosing that, but not Crock81
I think the best policy in something that only admins do more or less regularly, but users may experience once, is to have an explicit description of what happens, and what effects will occur. Crock81 (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

You too! MBisanz talk 18:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 15:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Like a boss! --Zackmann08 (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! MBisanz talk 18:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Kolega2357-Bot

Please give the bot flag, my bot is here intended, it says welcome to new users and adds interwiki. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcoming new users with a bot is not permitted on the English Wikipedia, see WP:FDB. If you want your bot to get flagged, you need to file a request at WP:BRFA. Legoktm (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Correct, what he said. MBisanz talk 03:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, adding interwiki links will soon become unnecessary with Wikidata. --Rschen7754 04:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Can you give me a bot flag so my bot can add interwiki? --Kolega2357 (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to file a request at WP:BRFA before I can give you a bot flag for interwiki. MBisanz talk 15:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

GloZell Green

Thanks. You're right - didn't see that. Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I figured it was the title change that confused you. MBisanz talk 15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Favor

I'm mentoring someone who withdrew from RfA on AfDs, having them "close" them before they are closed, as a way of helping them learn. One of them was an AfD you closed, where they would have closed differently than you did. If you have the time and inclindation, I think your input would be beneficial to help them learn about consensus in this example. [4] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

CHUU help/question

Hi, you recently declined my WP:CHUU request as an unused SUL already exists for the target user, and asked me to go to meta:Steward requests to delete the SUL here. I've gone to the steward requests page and got the SUL deleted here, is there anything I still need to do and can the usurpation be continued? Thanks, Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 20:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 23:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Tks for informing

Matt, thanks for informing. For the wiki security consideration, please remove the admin rights of that user. As I am not currently as active as I used to be, and I am now using the unified username lenyado instead. Thanks for the action and merry Christmas to you (in case you also celebrate it). --User:Yacht (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello MBisanz! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A question about usurpation of SUL

Hello MBisanz! I would like to get a consultation about uniting SUL. Whether it is possible or not to perform here an usurpation of a particular account for uniting SUL if there is an account with the same nickname already registered in another Wikipedia with only 7 edits—all in 2010—and unattached to SUL? (I himself don't pretend to request usurpation of that account and would be satisfied leaving it with its owner) I am asking about it just because I have seen declined requests with the reason "XX-wiki user will preclude rename". ♪ anonim.one ♪ 22:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It's really a subjective balancing test of weighing how large a contribution they made, how large a contribution you've made and that I expect you to make in the future, as well as how recent their contribution was and how large the SUL conflict would be after the fact. It varies from crat to crat. As a general matter, your 991 edits v. 7 edits from 2010 on one other project would be unlikely to prevent a rename. MBisanz talk 15:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

My username change request

Hi, my username change request in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations/Rejected/17#Sivaharivkm_.E2.86.92_Sivahari is rejected. Why its rejected? What i have to do for accepting it. --Sivaharivkm (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Log into "Sivahari" on the malayalam wikipedia and make an edit to your talk page there saying you want the rename done here. MBisanz talk 15:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Conservative treatment of ingrown toe nails

Hi! I wonder if you might want to take another look at your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative treatment of ingrown toe nails. You closed it by saying, "The result was Redirect to ingrown nails". But in fact, only one of the five commenters suggested a redirect, and two others argued AGAINST it. Furthermore, the "redirect" suggestion provided no rationale or explanation, while the two "don't redirect" comments explained their reasoning. It's hard to see how this adds up to a "result" of redirect. Might you want to reconsider this closure? (I did not participate in the discussion because I did not see it until now, but I would also have argued for deletion and against redirect.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Generally I consider redirects cheap, so if the argument is made, it carries a fair bit of weight. But because you've highlighted the opposes and your own thoughts, I've changed my close. MBisanz talk 15:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response! --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for The7stars

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The7stars. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SilverserenC 02:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Resysop of InShaneee

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Re-admin request

Just wanted to flag up my question to you in this thread, so it doesn't go unanswered. I have to say I'm perturbed by your actions here. Bureaucrats don't wheel war (or whatever the equivalent is) for good reason, but I think there's a necessary corollary to that: we take time to consider decision and don't do things stridently over the opposition of other bureaucrats. I don't understand why you didn't allow the discussion to proceed before acting on a minority viewpoint. WJBscribe (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked if anyone strongly opposed and then acted after consideration of your points, other non-crat comments and my own analysis. I don't see why resysoppings are now a group effort when they have been an individual decision, which as I believe you've said, an individual crat is liable for penalty if they fail to follow policy in performing. I'm also moderately dismayed by your recent crat action, namely in the Polarscribe, Perth case, and this matters. I know you've always been a progressive crat and we have you to thank for such innovations as adminbots, but I do think you've acted on your own to expand crat powers and such unilateral expansions have a two-fold harm. First, they serve to make it more difficult for future people to pass RFB because editors become more wary that a crat will try to grab more powers once they have the tools. Second, they serve to make the community more reluctant to grant the crats additional powers, such as inactive desysops, because editors will assume the crats will try to stretch whatever discretion they are granted to acquire further authority. MBisanz talk 03:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
"I do think you've acted on your own to expand crat powers" Can you substantiate that? You cite the example of Adminbots, but as I presume you recall, that was achieved through an RfA (i.e. the normal process) for a bot before I was a bureaucrat. My objection to your conduct is not the outcome - I would happily have bowed to consensus were it against me. It was that you acted unilaterally, over the objections of others. Decision don't have to be a group effort, but effectively you granted a request that had already been declined twice. Your decision to grant a request denied by others is IMO as bad as had I decided to reverse your action and remove InShanee's rights. We cannot prioritise use of the tools over decisions not to use them. This projects operates by finding consensus, and bureaucrats are no exception, despite your surprising assertion recently that you don't regard our actions as open to review (and staunch public criticism of those Arbitrators who dared to indicate they sought otherwise). It is interesting that you think it is me (who unlike you believes bureaucrats are subject to ArbCom review) who is the one that has been expanding the powers of bureaucrats.
That aside, as you say, individual crats are liable for their own conduct. Deskana appears to consider the matter closed. I do not. Not given the stance you take here. I do think you overreached yourself in this matter. Please reflect on your actions. I would appreciate your assurance that if similar circumstances were to repeat themselves, and you again found yourself disagreeing with other bureaucrats, you would seek a more positive consensus finding route. WJBscribe (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
In the Perth case you stated you would refuse to desysop and urged other crats to reflect on adopting a similar position. That was an attempt to usurp the position of Arbcom to determine desysops because you disagreed with the result in a particular case. In Polarscribe's case you repeatedly commented with the appearance of wearing your crat hat without disclosing you were involved in the original admin abuse complaint. In the InShanee case you put forward the view that even after Arbcom had reviewed a user's conduct, a crat still might determine the user had acted under a cloud. That again usurps Arbcom's role as the authority to determine if a user should be desysopped. Crats are supposed to act when Arbcom has failed to scrutinize a user's conduct, not where it has and the crat disagrees with Arbcom's result. As to the AdminBot issue, you did seek RFA for your AdminBot, you also were the first crat to approve an AdminBot outside of an RFA based on your opinion of an "emerging consensus" that you had enacted into policy. As I said to Deskana, I will be more careful; I took your comment that it was a borderline case and that while things indicated both ways and you thought they tipped one way, you invited comments from others to mean you had not issued a decision and were leaving it up to a subsequent person to actually make a decision. MBisanz talk 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 03:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower ChatOffline 03:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please explain

Can you please explain this close? One of the delete voters (Cindamuse) changed their vote to Keep. Two of the delete voters (Anthony Bradbury and Max Semenik) voted Delete because "References appear to be primarily subscription websites", which is both not a bad thing nor does it have anything to do with notability and the statement is also untrue. Then the first two just said GNG, which is refuted by the expansion I did with more sources in the article. So how is there a consensus to delete? SilverserenC 09:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

They both and Theopolisme and Theroadislong found the new references to be insufficient as reliable to pass the GNG. BWilkins also found that they unconvincing. DGG was unsure even after reviewing them. That indicated to me that people found those sources generally unconvincing as being reliable sources. MBisanz talk 18:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
And there were four votes that thought it did and voted Keep. Furthermore, Theopolisme, Theroadislong, and BWilkins did not respond again after my further expansion of the history section with news sources, so they weren't commenting on the current state of the article. And DGG being unsure means he's neutral, that doesn't mean Delete, regardless of what Bwilkins thinks. SilverserenC 19:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Among the four keep votes, part of Presidentman's was based on an invalid rationale of a prior AFD, which leads me to question his general understanding of the article. Cindy admitted even she thought the sources barely squeaked by the requirements and all of those opposing thought they did not. You thought it passed, as did Luk. The only people to comment after relisting thought there was a strong question as to its notability and Bwilkin's comment I take to reiterate it still fails. I'm sorry, I'm not undeleting it. Feel free to go to WP:DRV. MBisanz talk 19:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Sorry that we had to disagree on this. I've opened up a DRV, as i'll link at the bottom of the page. SilverserenC 02:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for asking. MBisanz talk 02:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your planned RfC

I would be honored if I could be the designated closer of the RfC for two reasons:

  1. I have closed the previous major RfCs regarding bureaucrats and administrators and it would be consistent.
  2. I have no viewpoint whatsoever on this topic and am able to keep myself impartial at all times.

Cheers—cyberpower ChatOffline 04:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know how/if I'm allowed to designate a closer, but you look competent for the task. MBisanz talk 04:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. If you ask me, it looks like its ready to go live. I would recommend a watchlist notice.—cyberpower ChatOffline 13:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look into the watchlist notice. I'm going to wait a couple days to give Dennis a chance to flesh out his ideas more. MBisanz talk 03:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Iamthemuffinman

Hi. I have raised an issue at ANI that apparently you have been involved with in the past - it is as WP:ANI#Iamthemuffinman -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Trembulo

Can you please tell me when Trembulo was created, so I can add it to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, July 26, 2010. MBisanz talk 11:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it usual to delete an article within 8 days just because two editors believe it is a hoax. Their opinions seemed to be based on the fact that they could not find anything online on this instrument, this is a bad precedent. Soon all old knowledge will be lost because no one can Google it. I had said on the talk page that I was going to have a look in a major music library over the Christmas break and I come back to find the article already gone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
If you really did find anything on this instrument, there's always WP:REFUND. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Correct, if there is new information, you can request a copy of the article and follow the processes on that page. MBisanz talk 02:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
That is not really my point. It seems rather rude and unnecessary to delete an article within 8 days just because two editors think it is a hoax when one editor has asked for you to hold fire while he investigates further.
You have also not addressed my point about online information. As far as I know, the original concept of WP was not to have an encyclopedia of only information that can be found online but all information. Information from more conventional sources can take a little more time to check.
I fully support the idea that hoax or inaccurate information must be removed from WP but the article had been up for over two years. A couple of weeks more would not have hurt. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
AFD is a time-limited process, but it's not a permanent process because it can be undone at WP:REFUND and WP:DRV. Also, the mere prospect that an article could someday be suitable for inclusion is not sufficient; it must presently display the qualities for inclusion. Wikipedia does include all information, but only all information that satisfies the relevant policies for verifiability, notability, reliability, etc. Information from books is as good as information from the internet, but there is no deadline to completing Wikipedia and the article can be undeleted if information from books is later discovered. MBisanz talk 18:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It just seems rather rude to me to stick rigidly to the suggested timescale when an editor has requested a few extra day to check the subject out. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerning K. Sedghi

Hello,

Please see Flying ace's Talk page concerning the above. There you will find reasons why I believe you should reconsider in this matter.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reconsideration.

Diako1971, who created this article, is a new editor who has been having a rough go of it. I note an undercurrent of ethnic hostility on Talk pages, aimed towards him by some other editors. I want to work on this article with an aim toward guiding him in the matter of reliable sources, adding cites, and other WP conventions.

There is a WP convention that an article may be improved instead of deleted, and I will work on this article on this basis, now that you have spared it. Again, thank you for being broad minded enough to revisit your actions.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of world club champions in association football

Not sure who to raise this with but you relisted this AfD and I respect you so I'll give you a go before heading to AN if needed. Basically I !voted in this AfD 6 days ago, and today I indeffed the nominator for disruptive editing without realising (it's only just been brought to my attention). Not sure if that makes me involved or not, but though I'd better let somebody know in case I need a trouting. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You're fine. No one would say you acted with malice or intent related to the AFD. The AFD will be closed in due course on the comments therein because it's unrelated to his conduct and his continued participation there isn't essential to the process. The key to WP:INVOLVED is the exception if any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. This clearly falls within that. MBisanz talk 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, though I'd better check just in case! GiantSnowman 19:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Yash

Hey MBisanz and happy holidays! I was confused so need your input. Can I be renamed to User:Yash ? TheSpecialUser TSU 04:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no, it already has an SUL owner and the nlwiki user has been active this year. MBisanz talk 05:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Yash! perhaps? I'm sure this time that there is no account with that name. Can you perform the rename or should I request manually? TheSpecialUser TSU 06:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I can do it if you tell me you want it. MBisanz talk 06:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I confirm that I want to rename my account (I'm aware of implications associated with using a real name). TheSpecialUser TSU 06:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done. MBisanz talk 06:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! — Yash (talk) (edits)  07:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


CURTAINTOAD! TALK! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey MBisanz! Wishing you a very happy New Year :) CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 09:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Line (2nd nomination)

Hi. You closed this AfD on "keep" without providing a closing rationale. Considering I have provided solid argumentation (which, I believe, outmatched any of the keep rationales) as to why the article doesn't meet our notability requirements , I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on what made the scale tip to "keep" in your opinion ? Thanks.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What tipped it to keep was the number of people who found the sources to be sufficient despite your opinion to the contrary. MBisanz talk 03:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that AfDs are not votes and are supposed to be based on strength of arguments, not headcounts, a DRV is appropriate, then.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes and a number of people expressing their reasonable opinion on an argument goes to it's strength. It's not a vote count, but the breadth of the opinions expressed goes to determining consensus. MBisanz talk 20:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
No, WP:VOTE is clear than number doesn't mean strength of argument. I see you're unable to mention any other strength than numbers (for example actual content), and that proves my point. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
People found there to be sufficient sourcing. That many people in good faith believed the sources meet the criteria to establish notability outweighs your opinion that they do not. MBisanz talk 02:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

DRV debate: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Battle_of_the_Line.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Changing username

Hello MBisanz, Happy New Year :-), and will you please take a look at my request, waiting for my new name, thanks.-- Captain Wikipedia! ( T - C - G ) 08:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

JohnFLBot

Can you please poke me on IRC when you have some time to discuss the removal of the IPBE I granted to JohnFLBot? You say it's not needed tho I'm fairly sure it is, would you mind popping by to discuss the matter? Snowolf How can I help? 20:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears there is an error in the userrights system where it doesn't show he retained the right. I re-tested now and he has and continues to have IPBE. MBisanz talk 20:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks MBisanz. John F. Lewis (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Gunday

Hey! Can I recreate the "Gunday" article? The film's first schedule is over and the first look poster has been released. Please lemme know what you think. Happy holidays! GleekVampire (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to recreation as long as User talk:AllyD is also ok with recreation. MBisanz talk 21:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRFA Backlog

Hello MBisanz! I'm contacting you because you're a member of the Bot Approvals Group. There are currently three BRFAs classified as "Trial Complete", along with a BRFA with "BAG assistance requested". There are also several open BRFAs that need responses. If you have time, assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! Vacationnine 00:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing these. With your denial of H.b.shbot however, AnomieBOT is saying "Inconsistent categories/tags!" (Wikipedia:BAG/Status). Could you take a second look at this? Thanks again! Vacationnine 00:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. Feel free to ping me if you or anyone else gets a day behind hearing from BAG. I know there are few of us and I don't want our delays to stand in the way of important volunteer work. MBisanz talk 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm not sure what you mean by a day behind, but our BRFA hasn't received BAG attention for a few days. There isn't a reason we need to wait or anything, and we have demonstrated that our bot meets all requirements (useful, consensus to operate, etc.) BAG comment would be nice. Vacationnine 01:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I meant if you've responded and no one's gotten back to you in a day or two. I'll read over yours now. MBisanz talk 01:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for responding! Before beginning our trial however, we need our Bot Flag. This is because the bot needs all of the previous five minutes' edits; more than 500 usually (500 is max for non-bot flagged users). Can the Bot Flag be granted before approval? Vacationnine 01:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done MBisanz talk 01:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again! Vacationnine 01:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

DO THIS

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[10:14pm] Franco|Andro: hi there [10:14pm] redshield3: hi [10:14pm] Franco|Andro: so, the problem is that you forgot your account? [10:14pm] redshield3: i forgot the password [10:14pm] redshield3: but i am still logged in [10:14pm] Franco|Andro: ahh. hmm, let me check something [10:16pm] Franco|Andro: sorry. just digging through some project pages. [10:16pm] redshield3: no worries [10:17pm] Franco|Andro: am i correct in assuming you need to enter your password to add an email address? (i don't work in account creation, so I haven't had to do any of this since I created my account) [10:18pm] redshield3: yeah you do [10:18pm] Franco|Andro: hmm [10:18pm] Franco|Andro: what's your username? [10:18pm] redshield3: redshield3 [10:18pm] redshield3: my email is [10:18pm] redshield3: my twitter is [10:18pm] redshield3: you get the idea [10:18pm] Franco|Andro: hmm. 1 sec [10:19pm] Franco|Andro: hmm. what browser do you use? [10:19pm] redshield3: google chrome, mainly [10:20pm] Franco|Andro: since you haven't edited in 3 days, but are still logged in, i take it you told it to remember your password? [10:20pm] redshield3: yeah [10:20pm] Franco|Andro: click here chrome://chrome/settings/passwords [10:20pm] redshield3: I must have changed it and forgotten to update my keychain [10:20pm] Franco|Andro: search for "wikipedia" and click "show" [10:21pm] redshield3: yeah, that's incorrect, I tried it several times [10:21pm] Franco|Andro: oh. hmm [10:21pm] redshield3: I'm logged in because I hit 'remember this login' [10:21pm] Franco|Andro: ahh. so it's the in-wiki cookie, not the in-browser preference that's doing it [10:21pm] redshield3: yep [10:22pm] redshield3: I went on a kick of changing all my passwords in the last few weeks - I used to use the same one everywhere, but now I have randomized them and save them in the OS X keychain [10:22pm] redshield3: so no site has the same password, and I don't even know what they are (31 char random) [10:23pm] redshield3: I've had a little trouble but all of my other accounts have an email on file [10:23pm] Franco|Andro: huh. just checking one more thing [10:24pm] Franco|Andro: there's one long-shot that could work. i have to check with a few people. [10:24pm] redshield3: ok [10:49pm] Franco|Andro: hi. you still there? sorry that took so long. [10:50pm] redshield3: ya [10:50pm] Franco|Andro: okay. so, how familiar are you with wikipedia? [10:50pm] redshield3: what parts of it? [10:50pm] redshield3: the articles? [10:50pm] redshield3: or the editing? [10:50pm] Franco|Andro: the editing experience [10:50pm] Franco|Andro: yeah [10:51pm] redshield3: somewhat - i've made changes here and there, and i've played around with the info box a little [10:51pm] Franco|Andro: well, there's three possible solutions. the one that allows you to keep your edit history is rather complex, and unlikely to work. so are you okay with losing the 61 edits you have logged? [10:52pm] redshield3: i guess so [10:52pm] Franco|Andro: (you'd obviously still be able to link to them from your new userpage, as many users do) [10:52pm] Franco|Andro: okay, so, how attached are you to this username? [10:53pm] redshield3: i literally use it everywhere [10:53pm] redshield3: online [10:53pm] redshield3: [10:54pm] Franco|Andro: hmmm. so, if you want to keep it, you'd have to request something called usurpation [10:54pm] redshield3: ok [10:54pm] Franco|Andro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USURP [10:54pm] Franco|Andro: the thing is [10:54pm] Franco|Andro: it's a rather rare case, so i'm not sure what the policy is toward it. give me a minute (sorry!) and I'll see if I can ask a bureaucrat their opinion [10:54pm] redshield3: ok [10:55pm] redshield3: there should be another system in place for password reset if the user doesn't have email [10:55pm] redshield3: FWIW [10:55pm] Franco|Andro: yeah. but don't get me started on tech stuff we should have [10:55pm] redshield3: ha [11:00pm] Franco|Andro: and we're in business! just go here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBisanz, start a new section and say "usurp me, please", or something along those lines [11:01pm] Franco|Andro: then you can re-register your account - and remember to enable email right away this time! [11:01pm] redshield3: thanks! [11:01pm] Franco|Andro: no problem [11:01pm] Franco|Andro: sorry that took me so long to sort out [11:01pm] redshield3: no worries. Thanks again [11:01pm] Franco|Andro: sure. don't sign off just yet, in case you have any questions post-usurp. [11:02pm] Franco|Andro: oh, and jsyk, you don't need to go into detail in your request or anything [11:03pm] Franco|Andro: i already explained the situation to him. he actually said to just write "DO THIS", but I'm afraid some might mistake it for vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redshield3 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 05:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A few questions about account username changes

Hi, I submitted a name change request once but you declined it. (No problem there, by the way.) I have a few questions about the process, and I figure you'd be the person to ask!

1. Is there some easy way to find a global list of usernames across all language Wikipedias? I've found the one for English (Special:ListUsers) but do not know whether there is a global list. This was the reason my previous name change was declined, so I'd like to avoid that problem next time if possible.

2. I understand that requesting a username that is very similar to another might be rejected. Would putting an accent on a character be too similar? (For example, if username Héllo were open but Hello were taken, would the name change go through?)

If you're not the best person to ask, I do apologize. I'm still getting my feet wet on Wikipedia. At any rate, I do appreciate your help! Cheers. wia (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm the best person to ask, so no worries. The global checker tool is at SULInfo. The similar name thing is a bit more subjective. Basically, we don't want you impersonating someone who people already know with a confusingly similar name. So Hello with an accent is fine, but HelIo with an I probably wouldn't be ok. Also, it's a balancing test. The person who owns Hello has never been very active on en.wiki, so we're more likely to grant variants than if you wanted to take, say, MBisans or MBIsanz as a variant. Let me know if I can help more or if you have a name in mind you want to run by me. MBisanz talk 20:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the global tool checker; that'll come in handy! I don't have a specific username change in mind yet, but this info is just what I needed. Thanks for your help! wia (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Reducing workload

Re your concern about getting more work to do [5]. They are many things you've had ample opportunity to do if you wanted Wikipedia to stop trusting you so much. Here's a partial list:

  • Bogus block, of course.
  • Bogus unblock.
  • Supervoting Rfa's or the like.
  • Making snarky comments about other editors.
  • IAR refusing to follow policy regarding long inactive admins who cause a ruckus upon their return.
  • Commenting patiently and reasonably to ArbCom instead of telling them off.
  • Refusing to do name changes for morons who can't make their minds up.

As you consistently do none of these things, I have no sympathy for your workload, it's your own damn fault.GerardW Nobody Ent NE Ent19:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  1. 5 is very tempting, but #6 would be no fun at all. #7 could be fun if I renamed them to include untypeable characters. MBisanz talk 21:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Mike Ricci afd

I was wondering if you could explain your rationale for saying that there was no consensus reached here. I realise that a consensus is not neccessarily a mere vote count. But as a matter of deletes versus keeps the keeps have it by a margin of 2-1. Sure there was alot of bickering by the same small group of people that always emerge at these mma deletion articles, but i have noticed much tighter margins where a fighter has been deleted such as here here where there has been an equal amount of bickering. Any insight into this phenomenon would be great. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I read it as Peter Rehse, TreyGeek, Hasteur, Beansy, CaSJer supporting deletion and LlamaAl, Sepulwiki, Mazter00, JonnyBonesJones, Poison Whiskey, Paralympiakos and PortlandOregon97217 supporting retention. But as you say, it's not a vote count. The fact that so many of the retention comments were based on non-policy criteria, such as a subjective expectation he would compete in future events to be notable, was what pushed it to no consensus. That people disagreed over the notability of his third fight and his general notability as an athlete is what tilted it towards keep in the first place. MBisanz talk 02:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, so Peter Rehse's nominating the article counts as a delete vote in your book? Or is this the precedent on Wikipedia? I was also wondering if you could point me in the direction of these policies that you speak of. Earlier WP:V was pointed out to me, and I see people leaning heavily on WP:GNG. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
If you look at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination, you can see that a person will nominate an article only if they think it should be deleted. Some specific policies you might find applicable to your content area are WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BIO, WP:EVENT, and WP:ATHLETE. MBisanz talk 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Let's Make Lemonade AfD Consensus

Hi MBisanz. I noticed you were the admin that recently closed the AfD discussion on the film Let's Make Lemonade with a consensus of merge. It seems though, from the discussion that there was not a consensus reached at all. And one of the issues raised is there is too much information of the independent article to integrate it into the page for Lemon Bucket Orkestra without overpowering that page.

I understand in the event an Afd is considered "No consensus", the issue is dropped and allowed to stay. Would it not be safer to err on the side of caution? There is quite a bit of sourced material in the article. NickCochrane (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My read of it was that while some people thought delete and others thought keep, an even larger third group consisting of people from both of those groups and independents thought it should be merge. While there was not consensus to keep or delete, there was a consensus to merge. MBisanz talk 04:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I could get that - however was it not a deletion discussion, rather than a merge or not discussion? Also, if you notice, there is quite a bit of material in the article - it would seem to make the Lemon Bucket Orkestra page quite bloated in terms of the film, whereas the band is independently notable, the film is more of a milestone. Sorry to take up your time, just looking for some clarification. Thanks for responding! NickCochrane (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Power Rangers villains

Would you be entirelyopposed to the restoration of this page? It would seem that there are other similar simple lists of other characters that it complimented, and there were some minor problems with the AFD that I still can't quite put my finger on. If not, I'll attempt DRV even though I'm not sure how to go about it in a way that's not going to get responses of "DRV is not AFD2".—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can't be more precise in how the AFD close was wrong, I would be inclined to DRV. MBisanz talk 16:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The close wasn't wrong per se, so I guess I'll go to DRV to try to argue for its restoration.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Up on DRV now. Again, nothing wrong with your close, just issues with the discussion and also ideas for the use of the page based on what you sent me in the email.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! MBisanz talk 19:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I can see this is going to be nigh impossible already.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

BAG

I submitted a request for entry into the group per your recruitment request.—cyberpower OfflineHappy 2013 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw. I tend not to comment early or at all because of signaling effects, but I appreciate your effort and eagerness to help. MBisanz talk 15:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Request

Could you perform the usurpation of my username. I have requested it on 27 December at WP:USURP. It is the "AdabowtheSecond --> Robin" one. Regards — Robin(talk) 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Usually the user being usurped is given one week to respond before being usurped. If you filed it December 27th, your usurp request will most likely be performed January 3rd. Vacationnine 00:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Right, thanks Vacation9. MBisanz talk 00:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Its 4 January 2013, the date, :O. Casually waiting... — Robin(talk) 20:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Post-Rename History Move

Hi. I've stoopidly made some edits under my old username, Svanslyck. Is it possible to move that history to the new account? (In the meanwhile I've asked the old username and its talk page to be protected.) Thanks. RiverStyx23{submarinetarget} 23:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's not possible to transfer edits between existing accounts. Don't worry about it though, no one will mind a couple misplaced edits. I could lock your old account so you can't log into it anymore if you'd like. MBisanz talk 00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please and update the Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection so they'll know its been done. Thanks again. RiverStyx23{submarinetarget} 01:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done MBisanz talk 03:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You deleted an article for no reason

Excuse me, but why did you delete the article titled "Zibby Allen?" It has been existing on Wikipedia since 2007 I believe, and all of the information is verifiable. In fact, if you claim that "it isn't verifiable," why has it been there for the last 6 years, and there is been an active talk page on it and it's been fine? I am seriously confused as to why the article is gone. -Mallen22 (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It was done per the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zibby_Allen. Please see WP:DRV to appeal. MBisanz talk 03:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize articles

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

-Mallen22 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Mallen22, I'm not seeing the edit war you allege. Could you clarify where it is? Otherwise, this warning appears to be improperly given. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my mistake. I didn't mean to put that there. -Mallen22 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

VoxelBot Trial Complete

Hello MBisanz! We've completed our trial at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VoxelBot, and if you could remove the bot flag that would be great. I don't know if the BAG member who approved the bot for trial is supposed to approve the bot as well, but that's what I've seen done so if you could take a look at the BRFA as well that would be great. Thanks! Vacationnine 18:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the flag and will try to take a look, but any BAG member can close it out. MBisanz talk 19:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Alright, thanks again! Vacationnine 19:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand if you can't because of some reason or another, but our BRFA has been sitting at trial completed with a {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} tag for quite a while. It also seems you're the only BAG member who has been online recently. If you can't, do you think you could talk to someone else? Like you said, BAG member's schedules shouldn't get in the way of bot approval. We NEED more BAG members. I appreciate your recruitment post. Vacationnine 02:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

UFC on FX: Belfort vs. Bisping

This should really have been redirected to 2013 in UFC instead of deleted, and it would be nice to have an opportunity to move the information to the page as well. Byuusetsu (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears someone took the initiative and created a redirect. MBisanz talk 02:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it was pretty weak of whoever deleted it to delete it. The information was fine, it's for a number one contender's match. I would have liked to have known the card. I like the aspect of easy to find information on Wikipedia. There's articles about other other completely irrelevant topics. Why can't we have a page for Bisping/Belfort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.156.186 (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!? I dont understand why you did that. It couldve easily been moved but to completely delete it is upsetting and frustrating to the users. Is there a way to report you for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revengeance357 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You can report me at WP:AN. MBisanz talk 16:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

AFD nominations

Hi, is it appropriate for jadesnake to re AFD an article that has been closed within 24 hours as was done here, and here?. It seems to me this person is on an mma fighter witchhunt. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

takke a look here and see how it is jadesnake and this jakeJr (Jake Roberts aka Jake The Snake)? Do you see where i am going? OR am I just being paranoid? There would appear to be a seamless transission between the afd's by these two accounts. I also do not believe that it is reasonable tht this person slaps that label on things, that if he did a basic search would see that is probably presumed notable. Yet clings to the guideline of WP:NMMA despite the fact that the people/organnizations in question have oodles of quality WP:SOURCES that are not of a trivial nature PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My second gripe is over Sue Rangall over at the AFD pages. All she goes is come in and say "not notable". I don't believe I have ever seen her make an informed vote/comment on any mma related AFD. I see nothing to indicate that she conducts basic searches beforehand. Just one example is at Antonio Mckees first AFD. she just says "not notable". When a search of google would have easily given her at least some reasons why he should be presumed notable. Is there some precedent for having someone be topic banned from a particular AFD topic? I feel she is really not constructive and is not trying to make an informed decision based on the facts on the table. Please also see he most recent comment at MMA fighter TJ Obriens AFD. Which I am having trouble hyperlinking for some reason. But her comment is "Comment - If this article is closed as a keep, I will petition for an article to be created about *me*, and my son too, as we both have trophies in "international" martial arts events". She is clearly not taking into account his MMA experience, nor the fact that he was on television a number of times, and that both of these things are verifiable. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally, re-AFDing in such a short period of time is inappropriate, but given that people's response to them has not been uniform (in the form of TreyGeek's comments), it might not be a violation of policy to have re-nominated them. As to your second point, I'm not making the connection. Can you spell it out for me in greater detail? I don't understand what the "seamless transition" is. As to Sue Rangall, have you tried approaching her on her talk page to ask about her process in forming AFD opinions? Finding out what she is thinking would be the first step to figuring out what is going on. MBisanz talk 02:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
If you click (19 more) and see all the MMA AFD's you will see that it alternates from jake, to jadesnake, then to jake, then to jadesnake again. As if a person where taking turns using these accounts to nominate articles. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Now I see the overlap. You might ask User:Dennis Brown about it, as he's better at interpreting those sorts of patterns. MBisanz talk 05:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
In regards to sue: I did notify Sue Rangall of how I felt about the matter.I would ask her again, But I have been on thin ice around here and do not want to get accused of hounding. Please see examples of what I am talking bout in regards to sue here and here. I would not have a problem with these lazy delete explanations except for that is all I see. [User:PortlandOregon97217|PortlandOregon97217]] (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Anderson (politician)

Hello, as a user sandbox for Andy Anderson (politician) exists, should that be {{courtesy blanked}} ? User:Andybrevard is the usersanbox for the processed article -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I tagged it for removal from the search engines, which should be sufficient. MBisanz talk 13:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Resysop RFC

At least one contributor to the Option 1 discussion thinks it's referring to someone who has ever been desysopped by Arbcom, ie including those whose brooms have been taken away temporarily, restored and have then resigned. I think this needs to be spelled out, or we'll have a whole load of new arguments. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that is not what I intended. Only if arbcom removed it and didn't restore it and the person hasn't regained it through RFA. MBisanz talk 19:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

administrators noticeboard

Hi, you were mentioned (kind of incidentally) in a convo here.

Noted. Thanks. MBisanz talk 00:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

WT:RFA#Rfacom

I'm surprised and a little embarrassed that I chose to put forward any proposal ... much less a proposal to ask people to voluntarily give up their right to vote at RfAs :) It's just that almost everything everyone has been saying has been more or less in line with that old proposal, so I want to test the waters to see if it's time to resurrect it. For instance, you said: "those with vested interests to defend would not have a platform" (and if it does happen that we present Jimbo with 5 options, your proposal seems perfectly reasonable as one of the 5). But if there's a significant, ongoing problem with people voting per their vested interests, wouldn't it follow that we want to try to shield individuals RfAs from that, too? Anyway ... just trying to get the conversation going. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea, but for a variety of reasons I'll be abstaining from that conversation. MBisanz talk 00:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I can think of some reasons. Glad you like it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Merchandise nomination

A Tshirt!
I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

David1217 What I've done 05:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ocelot Auto

Hi, just to let you know that Ocelot Auto (which you closed the AfD for) is getting repeatedly recreated. - filelakeshoe 09:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Salted. MBisanz talk 12:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

VoxelBot

Chris G would like a second opinion about the current method of getting reverts from another BAG member. You've been helpful in our BRFA in the past and if you could give a second opinion that'd be great. Sorry I'm bothering you so much but I really just want to get this whole thing over with so it isn't plaguing my mind when I'm trying to work. Vacationnine 14:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As you might have seen VoxelBot was approved for extended trial to test query-continue. Do you think you could re-grant our bot flag for this? Reasoning at the BRFA. Vacationnine 02:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done MBisanz talk 04:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The extended trial has been completed. If you could at the least remove the bot flag, that would be great. Input would also be appreciated if possible. Thanks for all your help! Vacationnine 02:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid you might have missed this comment, so I'm bumping this thread. VoxelBot needs to be deflagged. Vacationnine 13:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The flag on the bot isn't all that important. It can be removed now, later, or never, seeing as it's likely your bot is going to be approved.—cyberpower ChatOffline 15:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Funny you say that, it was just approved. Vacationnine 16:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Precisely 15 minutes ago. :D—cyberpower ChatOffline 16:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Great! I'm glad this was solved while I was detained with other matters. Happy editing. MBisanz talk 19:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#Transwikodia-TWO → TWO^0

Hello Matthew, I am here regarding this Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#Transwikodia-TWO → TWO^0. It seems it was an existing account when it is processed here. And the username "User:Transwikodia-TWO" still exists on other wikimedia sites? When we have our Username changed, it should have changed globally right? Please correct me If I am wrong. And please tell me what need to be done now. Thank you! -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 09:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only changed locally. You need to request renaming on each project where you want to use the new name. MBisanz talk 12:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. But I still don't get it, whether or not it works, if the desired account (username) we ask, is already created earlier like in this case? -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 20:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you viewed it AFTER I did the rename, so it looked like it existed already. If an account already exists at the time a rename is requested, you would request to take over that name at WP:USURP. MBisanz talk 20:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Non-free Scoutlogo/doc

A tag has been placed on Template:Non-free Scoutlogo/doc, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Redirected template doc , not used in a meaningful fashion

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safir English Language Academy

Hi MBisanz. Sorry to intrude, but would you mind expanding on the reason for your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safir English Language Academy? I don't think any of the sources listed in the debate can count towards WP:CORP, and as far as I can tell the school doesn't count for an automatic keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as it is a private, for-profit organisation. If there's something in the debate that I've missed, though, I would appreciate it if you could let me know. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I read Mehran and Terriersfan as corroborating In fact's assessment of additional sources to show notability and that Hasirpad came back and went from delete to neutral in light of his doubts as to non-notability. I didn't see anyone else question the sources or argue for deletion. MBisanz talk 00:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I think there is a problem with Mehran's and Terriersfan's line of reasoning: if you look at In fact's sources, these two[6][7] are just directory listings that don't have any actual content about the school, and these two[8][9] are copies of the same study jointly written by a teacher at the school (search for "Marjan Baradaran" to find it quickly). Therefore they either fail to have significant coverage of the school, or to be independent of the school, as required by WP:CORP. There haven't been any other sources brought forward (and I did make a good search for sources myself), so I don't see how this school could qualify as notable per our guidelines. In light of this, would you be willing to reconsider your close? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd be willing to revert to relist it, but I can't interpret the sources myself as part of the close because that would be a supervote, not a close. MBisanz talk 00:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I would have relisted it if I was in your shoes, I think. If you could do that it would be great. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for stopping by. MBisanz talk 01:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
That was quick! Thank you. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about User:Wikid77

Hi MB.

I come here to raise concerns about User:Wikid77, who has been under discussion at WP:ANI in this thread (and see other parts of the larger section). The primary theme was another editor's disruptive conduct, and that has been dealt with. I note that you posted a warning at Wikid77's talkpage (see User_talk:Wikid77#Warning); and that admin Hex hatted a long off-topic post of his at WT:TITLE (see Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Hyphen_anecdotes).

Now Wikid has posted what I think is the longest survey contribution so far (see diff), in an RFC on the relation between WP:TITLE and WP:MOS, using the RFC as a platform for yet more details of a peripheral or off-topic nature, again pressing his rejection of the MOS consensus on dashes and hyphens. This continues the same disruption that has worn editors down over the last few months.

Please consider what course of action might be available to keep the peace. As you may know, I am involved: as a very prolific editor at MOS and as a defender of the consensus formed in 2011 for this wretched dash issue (for which I drafted the version of WP:ENDASH that ArbCom endorsed as consensual).

I will now notify Wikid77 of this post.

Best wishes,

NoeticaTea? 07:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, MBisanz, User:Wikid77 here. I accidentally found that "Survey" at WT:AT, about inserting a line into policy wp:TITLE which would empower wp:MOS to dictate some aspects of title naming, as policy-level rules. I would have commented there sooner, but other editors have also opposed adding that line as elevating MOS to policy status, but with few examples of problem titles. I posted an opinion with some examples and links to related titles, to help clarify how titles have changed over the centuries, as styles have changed, and that some common-name titles might use styles which do not match the recent wp:MOS suggested styles. Another example might be "M*A*S*H" which has an unusual spelling (with asterisks), but that is a common-name spelling, pronounced same as "mash" without stars. Meanwhile, hash marks might form invalid wiki-markup "A#B#C#D". I regret that my posting of one message in that Survey has been considered "excessive" while other editors regularly in the wp:MOS group have posted several messages, some strongly worded or insulting, but without concerns that all those other messages would be the "longest survey contribution" of combined paragraphs. I am getting a clear reaction, after posting just 1 message, that my detailed analysis of the issues plus real evidence is not welcomed in the kind of forum that some regular wp:MOS editors are trying to control. Their actions seem to be making about a dozen other editors very nervous and suspicious of why they want to change wp:TITLE, but I won't mention any specific editors here lest they be targeted. Other editors have suggested a topic ban for some of the wp:MOS editors, but I am unsure of the history of prior conflicts they have had and perhaps an RfC/U would be better. At this point, I am waiting to see what several other editors are saying, but I do not think they consider you included. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikid77, the battle plan you advertised at Apteva's talkpage (see archived thread) drew MBisanz's attention, but was also distressing to many of us who try to make the best and most consensual MOS that can be achieved. We struggle against all but impossible odds, and succeed pretty well. The community, when it is asked, approves of the results; and ArbCom has endorsed the very consensus that you campaign against. Frankly, we are exhausted by the latest round of troubles with Apteva. Can you see that?
MBisanz is a very experienced admin and Wikipedian. I am just an ordinary editor who devotes his time to MOS (check WP:MOS contributions). We now have an RFC to confirm the accord between MOS and WP:TITLE. That is not a forum for returning to one's favourite gripes about the MOS guidelines. Have you any idea how hard you make the effort toward order and harmony? The RFC is not about dashes or hyphens; it about maintaining a rational framework for development.
No one is pursuing you; no one is "targeting" anyone you hesitate to name (see above!). We just want to get on with the work.
I have brought the matter here, confident that MBisanz will act wisely, or wisely refrain from action. Certainly it is out of my hands, and I have nothing more to say unless called upon. Too much else to do.
NoeticaTea? 10:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Other plans: Some other editors have advised to request updates to wp:TITLE with specific issues about so-called "styling" of names, rather than a blanket proposal to elevate wp:MOS to policy-level force. I have been thinking about styling of titles, for special cases (such as "M*A*S*H") but also wonder about CamelCase forms, where a notable group commonly called "MiAmIe" (rather than "Miamie") might reject typical first-capital-letter styling of names, or similarly a group commonly called "nACT mPACT" would need {DISPLAYTITLE:nACT..} to avoid "NACT", or changes to the MediaWiki software to handle hash-marked titles such as null "C#" for note "C-sharp" and hence others advise to handle each title separately. Titles go beyond style fashions to then require changing MediaWiki software, or templates: {{convert|c#|note}} gives "[convert: invalid number]". I have also offered to write quick #invoke'd modules in Lua script (which can search typos 180,000x times faster than markup searches) to help remind users of wp:MOS styles when editing text, so I thought more people were interested, and perhaps we can broaden support for other MOS styles. As long as the other venues are open to discussion by hundreds of editors, I think the community can seek whatever solutions will work. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I will be happy to review both sides of this matter when I get home and people can, as always continue talking in my absence. I would be negligent though if I failed to remind people that my intolerance for overly long posts because of my belief in process efficiency is well established. MBisanz talk 16:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Okey, I've had a chance to look things over. While Wikid77 continues to engage in community discussions poorly, in the same style and manner that has already been noted at ANI, I'm declining to act in this instance because the discussion at WT:AT had already run off the rails prior to his edit and has continued to plunge into the ravine without his futher assistance. In this case, he wasn't communicating in an effective manner to further collaborative editing, but many other people were, on their own, also not communicating effectively. I would warn Wikid77 to stop and examine how other people generally communicate on the project; their format, length, style, etc., so that he may attempt to conform his communication to something that will be more effectively received by those he engages with. MBisanz talk 19:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your care with this, MB. A measured response. Let's hope for improvements all round. NoeticaTea? 00:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
May want to look at the new ArbCom case request. --Rschen7754 00:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Uh huh. Just when you think we can all get back to work. NoeticaTea? 01:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Yay! It would appear other people saved me from having to expend words. MBisanz talk 20:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Ufa Metro

Hi! I noticed you just closed this discussion — you seem to have missed the fact that there were three articles in this nomination.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I went back and re-read it and annotated my closure. MBisanz talk 01:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt fix! הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at Tyrol5's talk page.
Message added 04:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

bare supports

You wrote: "I personally find bare supports to be annoying"

I would hate to be considered annoying (without a good cause). I like to !vote with a bare support (or bare "Keep" or "Delete" etc in other types of discussions) in the following cases only: The discussion is headed to a SNOW outcome. It means I have examined the question, and there is nothing of substance requiring repeating. I sign for my own records, to indicated support for the prevailing opinion, and as a marker in case I find an elaboration is required. I hope you find this reasonable? In the case of a contested discussion, I expect that the absence of explanation leaves the !vote liable for severe devaluation in the weighing of a rough consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate brevity and agree in most discussions it doesn't matter. The problem is that RFA is so divisive, that it's hard to justify striking an improper oppose reason (whatever improper is defined as) while letting people support with giving more context. You certainly have a reasonable position and I would even say your view reflects community consensus on the matter, so thanks for stopping by to remind me of why the community has reasoned in that manner. MBisanz talk 01:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop in and say that I found your overall comment to be very thoughtful. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to comment on the same thing, as one of the listed annoying bare supporters, I have a reason for bare supporting in most RfAs and it's essentially WP:AGF. All the RfA candidate is doing is saying they want to help Wikipedia more, and unless I find significant evidence to the contrary, or that they are otherwise unsuitable in some way, I will support RfAs by default. - filelakeshoe 23:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Name change

Hello,

I made a name change (from Mamduh to Mamdu) request and it was accepted but I'd also like it to be changed on Wikipedia Egyptian, Arabic, and Hebrew too. (to be a universal user name throughout Wikipedia).

Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamduh (talk • contribs) 23:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. We can't change names on other projects. You need to request it on each project where you want a rename. MBisanz talk 23:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot 2

I've reverted your approval of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot 2 because I couldn't find anywhere where Dcoetzee had confirmed that all previous problems have been resolved. There was no reply to your 00:20 6 January 2013 comment. If I've screwed up, please revert and/or tell me. Maxim(talk) 00:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoopsie. I found him on IRC after he asked onwiki about his other bot req. I've asked him to re-state his confirmation onwiki. MBisanz talk 00:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry: Arbitrary deletion of journalist's page

My page "Shana Ting Lipton" which was a brief journalists' bio dating back to 2002 or 2003 (with citations from papers of record including the Los Angeles Times, and media such as Huffington Post) was deleted in November, 2012. I am flummoxed as to why this page was deleted at all. It was not fallacious, controversial or random. I have indeed been a long-time journalist for publications such as Wired, Los Angeles Times, Newsday, Salon.com and so on. I rarely look at the page... just to see, from time to time, that it is accurate in information. I realise that I am not Arianna Huffington or someone of that level but was never aware the Wikipedia discriminated on the basis of mainstream fame. That is why I have always loved the site. In any case, doubtful if this will have an impact, however, thought that, in the spirit of this being a people's encyclopaedia, that I would bother making some feeble effort at bringing this small matter to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.69.70.132 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The article was created in September 2005, not 2002 or 2003. The reasons for the deletion of the article can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shana Ting Lipton. Wikipedia does not discriminate on mainstream fame, but does look to many factors to determine what articles should be included. I'm sorry you're unhappy with the decision, but appreciate you stopping by. MBisanz talk 05:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Eduardo Paulino AfD

I'm curious. Why did you relist this AfD for a second time when there is a clear 7–2 consensus and the discussion has already been open for two weeks? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I relisted it because of Alex's final comment which ran counter to those expressed earlier. I was erring on the safe side that if no one agrees with his position in the next week, it'll be deleted, but that if he did make a new point that would favor retention, the fact he was late to the discussion should not preclude full consideration of his point. It appears unlikely he point will be accepted, but I figured it would be better to let the point be discussed fully than be seen as cutting off discussion on a technicality. MBisanz talk 05:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Talkback at Tucoxn's talk page

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at Tucoxn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

04:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Moe Epsilon is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

04:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bare URLs

Hi Bisanz. Browsing and I notice a lot of bare urls. I was wondering if you knew somebody I could ask to code a bot to a] search all wikipedia entries for references with bare urls. b] To apply Template:Bare URLs to them, and then to format the ref in citation templates. Same goes for references which only name title not publisher and date of publication data and apply Template:Expand ref and do the same thing. I think it could prove very valuable for improving format and consistency on wikipedia.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know a person off-hand, but I know there are bots that do similar tasks. You might try asking at WP:BOTREQ and if that doesn't work, I'll poke around more. Sounds like a good idea to me. MBisanz talk 04:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Usurpation

Thank you for completing the above. lesion (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Anytime. MBisanz talk 18:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

List of programmes broadcast by MediaCorp Channel 8

Hi MBisanz, i am writing in response of the deletion of the above mention thread, the article has a vast knowledge of all the shows aired on Mediacorp Channel 8, also many users would want to find out lost data that couldn't be found on other websites, so i think the thread shouldn't be removed, and urged you to restore the page. Thanks. Evan Weinstein | Talk 11:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by MediaCorp Channel 8 where people felt that as Wikipedia is not a collection of all possible directory information, even if it is useful to some people, it should not be retained. MBisanz talk 17:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContinuityBot.
Message added 20:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bot trial complete. Piandcompany (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Bot trial II complete. Piandcompany (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

An interesting edit conflict

See here ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I know! MBisanz talk 00:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Barnes Wentworth (Dallas)

Hi, I saw you closed this AFD as merge Rebecca Barnes Wentworth (Dallas) to Rebecca Barnes. One person on the AFD said to merge the two, assuming they were the same character from two different runs, but they are not the same character (a reply made that clear) so a merge wouldn't be appropriate. Not really sure what should happen next. –anemoneprojectors– 10:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking a merger could work if a section is put under Rebecca Barnes saying she is the granddaughter of Rebecca Barnes Wentworth, a character who appeared in an earlier version of the series. MBisanz talk 20:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
A merge to some sort of list of characters would be better. They're not really from the same TV programme. I don't see how the AFD result can stand at all. –anemoneprojectors– 00:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a list that one of them could be merged into? The merge target isn't a final requirement of the AFD. The only requirement is that the article is not suitable as a stand-alone article. MBisanz talk 00:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well yes I think merge is the right result, just the target is wrong. Rebecca Barnes Wentworth (Dallas) could be merged to List of Dallas characters. There's a tiny amount of information already there, but there's also not a lot of space (the text could probably be cut down anyway if any of it is needed). It doesn't even link to the existing article! In fact just redirecting it might suffice. –anemoneprojectors– 00:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Is there anything I need to do for that? MBisanz talk 13:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess not. Someone brought it up at WP:SOAPS which is why I contacted you in the first place. I've now given a reply, so hopefully it'll get done from that. –anemoneprojectors– 13:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

needing a rename

hope this is the right process to go about it. want to change to BBMG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbmgtestwiki (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 January 2013

(talk page stalker) Where you want to request a rename is at CHU/S, not here. Vacation9 00:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, we can't give you that name because a German user already owns it. Please request another name at WP:CHUS. MBisanz talk 00:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Eduardo Paulino AfD

I'm curious. Why did you relist this AfD for a second time when there is a clear 7–2 consensus and the discussion has already been open for two weeks? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I relisted it because of Alex's final comment which ran counter to those expressed earlier. I was erring on the safe side that if no one agrees with his position in the next week, it'll be deleted, but that if he did make a new point that would favor retention, the fact he was late to the discussion should not preclude full consideration of his point. It appears unlikely he point will be accepted, but I figured it would be better to let the point be discussed fully than be seen as cutting off discussion on a technicality. MBisanz talk 05:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
MBisanz, in keeping with the logic of your January 16 relisting of this AfD, I respectfully request that you now close this AfD discussion. The debate had run its course, and no further comments were elicited, and the clear consensus remains. As I suspected might occur, we now have a non-admin mechanically relisting the debate because no one has commented since your last relisting on the 16th (see diff). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I see InShaneee has now closed it. Thanks for reminding me though. MBisanz talk 13:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, MBisanz. Happy trails. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Inappropriate Afd closure & Redirect

Hi there. You have closed this Afd which generated 3 'Delete' ivotes and 1 'Redirect' ivote. The established community consensus was not 'Redirect to a Stand-alone list'. The result was 'Delete'. Apart from this, Wikipedia's Manual of Style Guideline for Stand-alone lists explicitly discourages redirects into Stand-alone lists: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia". You might want to please reconsider your decision and undo your addition of a Redirect into a Stand-alone list. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no one, including yourself, made that argument at the AFD and given that at least one person thought redirecting was appropriate, the caution of Wikipedia:PRESERVE#Try_to_fix_problems warranted a close of redirect. MBisanz talk 04:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Noone presented the Wikipedia:PRESERVE#Try_to_fix_problems argument in the Afd either. At least 3 editors ivoted for delete, thus very clearly establishing community consensus. To further complicate matters, you have placed a redirect entry into a Stand-alone list, something which WP:CSC explicitly does not permit. I will kindly ask you again to reconsider your decision. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I won't reconsider. In closing AFDs, I act with a precautionary principle to only delete if there is a consensus to delete because of the permanent nature of deletion. In this case there were reasonable grounds presented to not delete, specifically, to redirect, and no one argued that those grounds were superior to deletion. See also Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Consensus as it relates to outcomes not being controlled solely by the balance of votes. MBisanz talk 11:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Twice you have now remained silent on WP:CSC which stipulates that each entry in a stand-alone list must have it's own non-redirect article. Even though there is no actual 'Baby Police' entry in that stand-alone list, yet the redirect is there, and it's just a matter of time before an editor comes along to do exactly this. Your Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Consensus argument is not convincing, because in ignoring the 3 Delete ivotes, you have violated against an existing Wikipedia Guideline by placing a redirect into a stand-alone list. Could you please explain why you added a redirect into a stand-alone list even though WP:CSC explicitly forbids it? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The CSC argument (or any argument opposing redirect) was not made at the AFD. You can go to DRV if you'd like, but I will not change based on arguments brought forward after the AFD because there is no discussion of your argument. Alternatively, I would be willing to change the close if you were able to convince the person who made the redirect comment that they were wrong and would like me to reconsider in the absence of their comment. MBisanz talk 12:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines are not subject to an editor's admission of being "wrong". Again you remain silent on the question of why you bypassed WP:CSC by adding a redirect into a Stand-alone list. You have not yet answered that question. What I want to know is this: when you redirected the article into the stand-alone list, were you aware that WP:CSC does not allow redirects into Stand-alone lists? Please kindly reply directly to this question. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I was not aware of the cited provision when I closed the AFD. Even if I had been aware of it, I would not have closed in a different manner unless it had been brought up by participants in the AFD. MBisanz talk 15:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manish Sharma (businessman)

Hi, can you explain why you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manish Sharma (businessman)? Consensus is very clear, it has 8 delete to 1 keep !votes, which although we don't just count votes, the arguments on the delete side are strong. It doesn's appear that relisting the article serves a valid purpose. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded over there, thanks. MBisanz talk 21:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 21:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons account

When you can, briefly check your Commons account for this message. You may know how to handle this image. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langdon & Seah

Hi. You have closed this discussion with result of merging Langdon & Seah into Davis Langdon & Seah. But, shouldn't it be the other way round, as "Langdon & Seah" is the latest name of the company? --GDibyendu (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I read "Merge and redirect to Davis Langdon & Seah" as merging Langdon & Seah into Davis Langdon & Seah, but if you're willing to do it, it doesn't matter as long as one of the articles ceases to exist. MBisanz talk 21:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Dykstra

What made you delete this article? The debate seemed to be at a dead heat. By my count, there were 2 deletes, and 3 saves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but AFD is not a vote count and those supporting retention failed to show reliable sources. MBisanz talk 00:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There was no clear consensus. It seems like you acted like judge and executioner while the jury was still out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, but you can appeal my decision at WP:DRV. MBisanz talk 01:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Appealing decisions is work. I don't feel like going through it. You say those supporting retention failed to show reliable sources, then just delete the article. What you should have done is make that point. I would have followed that up with the point that an article from GQ is a pretty good source to me. I believe the debate is secondary to you. I see on your user page that you boast about having deleted 60,000 articles. You seem to enjoy "lobbing off heads" and this was just another head for you to lob off.

Your edit to MediaWiki:Histlegend

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&oldid=535407999#Have_we_lost_the_count_of_the_number_of_watchers.3F --MZMcBride (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

YouTube Top 100

By now I should know not to let a discussion fragment. I left a note at User talk:Insomesia#YouTube Top 100 because his comment didn't really make any sense: YouTube videos certainly get tracked on the Social 50, but the Social 50 and the YouTube Top 100 are distinct things. I'll redirect to YouTube itself. If anyone ever did extract anything from the current article, that would be the logical target.—Kww(talk) 00:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for letting me know. The actual target is an editing choice of an AFD result of only retaining a redirect. MBisanz talk 00:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Beverley Squares (Brooklyn)

Hi: You closed the AfD on Beverley Square East, Brooklyn as merge to Victorian Flatbush (the article I created for context while also expanding and referencing both the AfD'd article and Beverley Square West, Brooklyn (both of which were moved during the discussion to the more common spelling). After some thought I decided it would make more sense to combine the two Beverley Square articles, since they have substantial overlap in content and there are some uses of the collective Beverley Squares. So that is what I have done; I merged Beverley Square East into Beverley Square West and then moved that to the collective title, after leaving notes regarding my intention on the talk pages at Beverley Square East and at Victorian Flatbush while I got a night's sleep. I am now off to eliminate double redirects and otherwise clean up links, but the merger template referring to the AfD decision is still there on Talk:Victorian Flatbush and there is of course none on Talk:Beverley Squares. If you are amenable to the solution I implemented, please could you adjust the template situation to match so that neither human editors nor bots get confused? Otherwise drop me a note; it would be an awful lot of material to squeeze into Victorian Flatbush and unbalanced with Beverley Square West, Brooklyn, but obviously I would bow to consensus and re-merge and undo the move, and I'm the logical person to do it since I researched the topic and wrote almost all the content of all 3 articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I moved the template to make it right, but feel free to change it if I got it wrong. I agree with your actions. MBisanz talk 18:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Deletion of murder of Anne Barber Dunlap

Hello, I was the principal author of the article "Murder of Anne Barber Dunlap" which was deleted without my knowledge. The deletion request was posted on New Year's Eve and I was out of town for the entire deletion review period. I only edit WP occasionally and have not logged in for a while. Had I known about the deletion discussion, I not only would have voted against it myself but I would have alerted others who have taken an interest in crime articles who probably also would have voted against deletion. Since there were only three votes to delete, obviously if I had voted and persuaded only one other person to vote against it, the article would not have been deleted. I would like to request that the article be undeleted. I am making this request of you as the deleting administrator, per the instructions before starting a deletion review.

In defense of the article, I would like to point out that the case led Pillsbury Co. to stop advertising on TV programs containing violence and resulted in a review by the US District Court of the practice of police departments sharing information from their investigations with insurance companies. This is one of the most famous unsolved cases in the history of Minnesota. The case comes up in the media from time to time in the Midwest and people turn to the Internet for information. If the prime suspect is ever charged, I have no doubt that this would instantly become a very well known case nationally. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom Osenton

I have a new version of the above topic that I would like to post. It still needs work, but I believe this man is Notable. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If you could run it by User:Mr. Stradivarius, I'll defer to him because he was very active in researching it at the AFD. MBisanz talk 02:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it too early?

Hi MBisanz,
I would like to know, why you closed an active deletion discussion, especially while there was no consensus. Even, one of the delete voters had just changed his mind. See the talk here. Thank you --Universal Life (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NotEarly#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed says an AFD runs at least 7 days. By my math it ran 7 days, 17 hours, and 41 minutes. As to the other aspect, I found there was a consensus not to retain the article because commenters found it did not meet WP:NBOOK and WP:SIGCOV. MBisanz talk 23:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi MBisanz. Hope you're doing well today. I feel like there was a fairly large consensus for delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy. I'm not exactly certain as to what material about the book would be appropriate to merge into the article Ananda Marga, an article fundamentally about a spiritual movement. If not agreeable on deletion, would it not be standard practice to merge the book to the author Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar? I suggested the redirect to Ananda Marga#Spiritual and Social Philosophy because I did not feel the book information was particularly mergeable. Mkdwtalk 23:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The specific outcome of an AFD is to retain or not retain the article. While there was consensus to not retain it, some people thought a redirect or merge could salvage the content and WP:PRESERVE is a cautionary principle. However, the AFD doesn't decide the content itself, so the exact target of the redirect or the quantity of content to merge (if any) is an editing choice that you can make. Hope that helps. MBisanz talk 23:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I've been working on it for the last few hours. And it has been told that it has offline references that prove notability. Some more time could be granted, as there are at least three "keep" votes. What is the rush? You seem to ignore the important conversation I made with Garamond about the subject. And I really don't understand how there was a consensus to delete the article. Moreover, see The Cretan Runner that has not been even tagged for references for years (since 2009), now with my remark, has been PRODed. You see, PRODed so people can work on it, not really proposed for deletion. This is the bias that is on the English WP. The article could even be incubated. We should try to see the full-half of the glass, not always the empty-half. --Universal Life (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
What if I userfy it for you and then you can bring it back through AFC or DRV when you've had a chance to work on it more? MBisanz talk 23:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Universal, an AfD and a PROD share a similar timeline. They both require 7 days to lapse before they are either deleted or kept. In fact, an AfD gives an article a larger chance of being saved sometimes because it is publicly discussed whereas a PROD must rely on a much smaller group of people who patrol to fix PRODS. Mkdwtalk 23:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The moment I saw that it said a consensus has been reached, I copied & pasted the content to a user subpage, for I'd worked for it. However I still do not understand this concept of consensus. Consensus doesn't mean majority of the votes in the English language as far as I know. Unanimity or something very close to unanimity is what I defer form the term.--Universal Life (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
We have WP:CONSENSUS to clarify for this reason. Mkdwtalk 00:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I decided to merge the article to Ananda Marga#Literary production instead since there was already a paragraph about the book there as well as other writings from the same author. Hope you don't mind. Mkdwtalk 23:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. I defer to your knowledge of the matter. Thanks. MBisanz talk 23:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Social Work Helper

Social Work Helper was deleted, and it should not have been according to notability guidelines via Wikipedia. The notability standard is applied to the web content being introduced and not whether the editor think the independent sources are notable. The justification for deletion of this page was biased, and there was no consensus. The standard used for the independent sources were not whether they were independent, but whether they were well known to the editors who objected to inclusion. Notability guidelines as I quoted in the post was ignored and the decision was arbitrary. I would like for this decision to be reversed or put up for deletion review.Dhooper383 (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the opinion of the AFD was in unanimous opposition to your interpretation, so I will not reverse it. You're welcome to proceed to DRV. MBisanz talk 14:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete, delete, delete

I'm starting to draw the conclusion that you simply enjoy deleting articles. Reading your talk page, it seems that a couple other editors have the same issue I have; that the article in question was deleted by you without a clear consensus to delete being reached. I can't speak on the relevance of the other articles, but I can say that Jessica Dykstra's article had more saves than deletes, and the arguments made in her favor were more relevant than you gave them credit for being. The movie she makes a cameo in is about to hit theatres. You didn't even wait for its release to determine that her appearance in it was trivial, and that her article should be deleted. Your judgment is questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You're free to proceed to DRV if you think my judgment is questionable. The AFD process does not have a rule regarding waiting for pending activities. MBisanz talk 14:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • LOL, the movie. I pointed out she's not even in IMDB for it, never got any response. I thought WP:HOTTIE might pull her through but there was no other way to close it.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

RfD:Other people's money

Hello, MBisanz. You closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other people's money as redirect to Milton Friedman. You may be interested in a discussion I have initiated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 2#Other people's money. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeking Advise / Help

Hi MBisanz, Am Dr. K. Kokula Krishna Hari! I came across many people saying that there was an article at Wiki regarding to me and my organization (Association of Scientists, Developers and Faculties). When I tried checking it, unfortunately it was deleted because the articles were unsourced. Now, I have those article listings in newspapers. Can you advise me how to proceed, as am not an advanced Wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdykkh007 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC) If you have sources, you should bring them to WP:DRV. If you don't know how to use DRV, list them here and I will file a request. MBisanz talk 00:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


With the reference to the above discussion which we had am happy to give the news source regarding to the ASDF. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/klu-faculty-win-awards/article4339012.ece

Would be highly greatful to act according to your advise. Pdykkh007 (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I would submit the references to User talk:Gigs to review because he knows more on the specific area than I do. Or you could submit it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation or Wikipedia:Deletion review and see if people think the new sources are sufficient. MBisanz talk 21:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

John Henry Rasor

Hi. The John Herny Rasor AfD has just closed. Would you be willing to explain how eight keeps and four deletes constitutes a no consensus result? This is not a complaint. I'm just trying to understand the process --Senra (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I found Cdtew's comment, made after all the other comments had been made particularly useful. Some of the earlier people saying to keep the article, like Bacchiad FurrySings, used non-policy comments, as did some of the deletes like Shii. Cullens' comment seemed to indicate there are some holes in the sources and Cdtew said he thinks he's notable only for having some coverage for owning what isn't all that much land. It seemed like even at the end of the AFD, people were having trouble figuring out what exactly he was notable for and if whatever he was known for is notable by our standards. MBisanz talk 01:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Very much appreciated --Senra (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Salt_Lake_Metro

MBisanz - would you please reconsider your close here. The two sources that were eventually found were both about the launch of the magazine and controversy immediately thereafter. Gongshow and NA1K both said they doubt the depth of coverage available qualified this subject for an article and both keep !votes suggest a redirect and I agreed with the redirect. The consensus appears to be redirect/delete to me.--v/r - TP 19:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've undone and relisted it. I'd rather let people like you comment on Gong's interpretation of sources then try to guess on my own. MBisanz talk 22:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Musician / band info box

I don't know if you get a say in this, but can I make a request so we can add the nationality and the relationship (or marriage) for the musicians in their info box like how it's done on movie star pages? --Mr. Washee Washee (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You can make a request at WP:VPP or on the talk page of the infobox template. I don't get a say in it. Thanks for letting me know. MBisanz talk 22:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with surname Jones

Hi there, I noticed you just closed this Afd. I happened to be typing a response when you did so and hit an edit conflict. I was wondering if you would you care to reopen this for this discussion? Funny Pika! 00:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, although I may not relist it right away. MBisanz talk 00:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Funny Pika! 00:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Afd (PROUT in a Nutshell)

I have corrected a typo in your comment here and in the redirect. I hope you don't mind. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 00:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was my error. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Deletion of Wendy Bell O'Toole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Bell_O'Toole You found the result of the discussion to be "delete" but the page has not been deleted yet, I was wondering what is going on with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I see someone else fixed it. Thanks for reminding me. MBisanz talk 13:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Melissa Ketunuti

You relisted this AFD and I'm wondering why. 17 editors have chimed in and 12 of them say delete arguing WP:NOTNEWS for the most part. That sounds like delete to me....William 23:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:RELIST reads "However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus.

Of the 12 editors who said delete, they include

  • Delete WP:NOT#NEWS.
  • Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS applies; also fails WP:EVENT.
  • Delete- I agree that WP:NOT#NEWS applies here.
  • Delete Unpleasant, sad, even tragic, but wikipedia is not a news source. (WP:NOT#NEWS)
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS.
  • Delete: Reporting emphasizes the "sensational" nature of the crime, but not its notability.
  • Delete - We need an adjunct guideline to WP:NOTNEWS called WP:NOTTRUECRIME.
  • Delete I see nothing that suggests this murder meets WP:N/CA and WP:CRIME.

A relisting for an AFD that is over 2 to 1 in favor of delete and the delete crowd clearly argues WP:NOTNEWS. Why is this AFD still going on?...William 01:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

most of the delete votes were when the article was garbage and written like a two year old. One keep voter actually studied the not news and found that none of the 4 not news criteria applies. When we say not news, people fail to accurately apply the guideline and just think "thus is a news story so delete it". Well, 9/11 was news..but it, like Ketunuti, does not met the deletion criteria under not news.Bamler2 (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS was valid whatever the state of the article. More importantly WP:PERSISTENCE also applies since this story has already died out. Other than for the Doctor's funeral, there has been next to no news coverage. Comparing this to 9-11 is silly at best, and insulting at worst. I knew one of the people[10] killed that day....William 16:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Having had a second look, I've gone ahead and closed as delete. MBisanz talk 01:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

/* Murder of Dr. Melissa Ketunuti */

You relisted it then deleted the article within hours before anyone could comment. It would have been better if you allowed some time to pass after resisting. You also gave no reason. Most deleted and keeps are done this way but that does not make it right or optimal. Someone suggested that if your feelings were for deletion, that you redirect to CHOP since the event has the potential to grow and, if so, the previous writing and reference gathering would be helpful. Bamler2 (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I deleted after relisting was because I changed my mind after re-reading it and seeing the delete comments did cite substantial policy grounds and were sufficient for a close. Only one person thought of a redirect to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and that was rebutted without further discussion. If the event does grow and attain partial or full notability, it can always be brought back at DRV. Would you like me to email you a copy of the article with the references in it? MBisanz talk 00:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The article's creator, Gravelocator, has a copy of the article up on his user page. Bamler can go there if he wants it but that also brings up another matter. Is it proper to use your userpage for storing a deleted article?
attacking Mr. or Mrs. gravelocator by destroying their usepage is mean spirited. Some admins specifically allow others to work on their user pages as a sandbox. Bamler2 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:STALEDRAFT "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content....William 16:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
As for a redirect, there was only one editor(not even yourself. You even said weak keep. BTW I checked the news yesterday, other than the doctor's funeral, this story has come to a standstill so far as media coverage. So WP:PERSISTENCE comes up. Murder of the week for Philadelphia sounds more like it than year.) who supported or mentioned it. 12 editors, or 13 counting the person who started the AFD(me) said delete and arguing WP:NOTNEWS. Relistings are for AFDs with little participation or where consensus is unclear. This AFD wasn't unclear, 13 to 5 in favor of delete and the 13 firmly rooted in WP policy....William 16:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge (2nd nomination)

Would you be willing to reconsider this close and relist the debate instead? As I was arguing against Bushranger I do not believe that the sources that were found establish notability, and I would like the opportunity for more editors to weigh in on that matter. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I've relisted it, but I really don't see how it's going to change at this point. MBisanz talk 13:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard dance

Hello. Apologies, I didn't have time to respond to the AfD prior to the hard dance removal, life has been hectic, so I'm raising my point with yourself as the admin involved.

As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Music, I'd say hard dance suffers a similar notability issue as the Alternative metal example. I believe the general evidence enough to support that 'hard dance' is not a postmodern term. Searching for "hard dance" "hard house" "hard trance" nu-nrg hardstyle -umbrella -wikipedia shows a great deal of circumstantial use of the term from the likes of music streaming/e-commerce, event, forum and social sites. For 'top down' usage by the people who produce and DJ the sounds, the decade strong Hard Dance Awards industry event is a notable data point.

Regarding finding paper based reference sources for the term - it appears a hard task, partly because no-one wordy leaning enough has had the time to write up a book good enough (i.e., like Brian Belle-Fortune's 'All Crews' is for the cultural details of drum and bass), partly because a lot of the information is locked away in media like magazines and newspapers (use of terms by journalists in reviews, or by acts in interviews).

Instead of deletion, I feel it would be worth going down the route of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and making the article a stub again. (I'm kind of upset that no-one responded to or touched on my points, which included that idea, in the deletion discussion). Given the fairly whelming general evidence that could be cited, is there a policy that states that an article cannot indefinitely remain a stub until better references on the history of the scene related to the term are sourced? Thanks for your time. --MilkMiruku (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree with the close, but it appeared well-discussed and people did not support retaining it as a stub. While a sourced article may remain a stub indefinite, an article for while no reliable sources exist cannot remain, as a stub or otherwise. That you agree no one has written extensively on it makes me further reluctant to revisit the AFD close, as circumstantial evidence can't serve as a replacement for reliable sourcing. MBisanz talk 23:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of User page?

Bamler2, like I noted with Gravelocator[11] up above, is using[12] their user pages to store a copy of the deleted Murder of Melissa Ketunuti. As I read WP:STALEDRAFT, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." So should a administrator take down these drafts as improper use of a user page?...William 18:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I've put a tag on it that will remove it from search engines. Assuming the tag isn't removed, there is no harm to letting him keep it, so I wouldn't worry about it. MBisanz talk 23:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple#Ksriram1978 .E2.86.92 Sriram Kannan

Hi Matthew. This CHU/S request has been sitting for a few days and I'm wondering how it should be processed. I've corresponded with the user, who seems to have a self-promotional userpage, a concern articulated by another clerk as well. He insists that the rename is for non-promotional purposes (and I'm inclined to assume good faith, since a real name is not a violation in and of itself). Perhaps speaking with the editor about his userpage is the most judicious way to proceed? Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah.... I'm inclined to deny the rename request as all of his edits have been to his clearly promotional userpage. I think I'll decline it on that basis and leave the door open if he either changes his userpage or contributes to the content of the project. MBisanz talk 23:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, thinking about it, that's probably the best way to go. Sorry for bugging you, by the way; just wasn't sure how to proceed and thought the request merited some sort of response. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/VoxelBot 2.
Message added 17:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vacationnine Public 17:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

To an esteemed administrator who is involved in deletion requests, I humbly come with a question. What is your initial impression about this? I come to learn, not to cast an opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_Hawkins Auchansa (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it was created as self-promotional, but if the sources are as described, he's probably notable and can be retained. MBisanz talk 15:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

VoxelBot AWB

Hello MBisanz, thanks for approving us for trial. To start our AWB trial portion we have to be added to the AWB Approval list under Bots. Do you think you could do this? Thanks! Vacation9 13:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I see Addshore beat me to it. MBisanz talk 15:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
(: ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Baby Police

Hi, you made it to redirect to this list, so far so good. But the movie doesn't show up there at all?! --Xario (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, would you consider answering? The problem still remains. --Xario (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
My apologies for missing this note. It should be there now. MBisanz talk 02:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Awesome! cya, --Xario (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

For your Help for Changing Username!

Hi, I posted on "Archive 128 of Changing username" on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple/Archive128#Faizanal-badri_.E2.86.92_Faizan_Al-Badri I want to change my username, but no one has reviewed it, Robot clerk note has also not been received, so please help me! I want to change my username from "Faizanal-badri" to "Faizan Al-Badri" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizanal-badri (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to add it to WP:CHUS, not the archive. Anyway, I've gone ahead and made the rename. MBisanz talk 15:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! But please, make the procedure more easy for finding WP:CHUS! Because in the whole text of the Main Username Change Page, I didn't see this WP:CHUS! Thanks Again!Faizan (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DPT Labs (2nd nomination)

Hello MBisanz: It appears that the article DPT Labs may have been deleted without a discussion of the number of sources, their depth of coverage and their availability regarding the topic.

  • The first AfD closed as keep per the sources and the second AfD was closed as delete without any source evaluation, other than from the sole keep !voter in it.
  • This topic appears to meet or pass WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability and depth of coverage of reliable sources, rather than just those that may be present in an article.

I'm considering taking this article to Wikipedia:Deletion review; per the instructions there, I'm sending you this message to discuss the matter first. Also note that there's a working version of the page, which I had userfied, located at User:Northamerica1000/DPT Labs. Please respond at your convenience, and thank you. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming here, but given that the change isn't plainly obvious (like a previously crystal event occurring), I'd prefer to send it to DRV. Thanks. MBisanz talk 18:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 Done (See notification below). Northamerica1000(talk) 05:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of "Skoosh" page

Hi Matthew,

I see that you deleted the page on "Skoosh" back in January, as per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skoosh

Looking at the reasoning, it seems this was due to it referring to a Scots-English word, which seems fair enough.

However, the page was originally about the hotel booking agency, Skoosh.com, that featured in the news last year regarding price fixing in the hotel industry... I guess you can probably find the old content, but it seems someone came in and must have have completed edited it out, if you saw the page as being about the word rather than the company.

I'm not sure of the best way to get the original page back now that you have deleted it completely - I'm no wikipedia expert, just interested in this particular case.

Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldinho (talk • contribs) 11:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

To get it back, you should submit it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. MBisanz talk 22:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles deleted at AfD recreated

You were the closing admin at an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tournaments during late 2011 and early 2012 on the Sunshine Tour) that deleted 4 related articles. User:Johnsmith2116 has recreated two of these articles with the same content. What is the process for deleting these again? Tewapack (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've G4'd them. Thanks. MBisanz talk 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It is time to Salt 2015 Formula One Season

This article was deleted per an AFD yet it has been recreated about 5 times, which of which have occurred since late Decmeber of 2012. Could you please take care of it? I did CSD it under G4. Thanks....William 18:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 19:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for DPT Labs

An editor has asked for a deletion review of DPT Labs. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

230

The reason I included it at WP:WMFN is because I heard it is why they don't make content edits. I figured beginners may want to know that if they stumble upon this board. But that would be better at a FAQ about the WMFN to specifically address this point, I guess. Biosthmors (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What kind of things do you think I could add that would actually be helpful? Biosthmors (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything that could be added that would make it worth keeping. It's just an extra noticeboard that isn't serving a need from my perspective. MBisanz talk 18:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand, but what could I add to make more people think it was worth keeping, in other words? I have a couple ideas but I'd like to hear your perspective if you don't mind. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Before editing

Where do I go to if I want to make a request for major change on Wikipedia itself? I want to request so everyone have to fill up the "Edit summary" before you can submit your edit to reduce vandalism and to explain changes. As some people seem to not explain their change/s after edit on the "Edit summary" regardless if it's a vandalism or not. --Mr. Washee Washee (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It would go on the WP:VPR, but I have seen such proposals fail before. MBisanz talk 00:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Maristella Patuzzi delated page review request

Dear MBisanz I opened a discussion about the voice in object. I saw many updates about Maristella Patuzzi. From the 2009 the situation changed a lot. I suggest to recreate the voice. I could create the Italian voice and the English one if needed. Let me know what do you think. May be I create a page in the italian language wikipedia page?

http://www.rsi.ch/argerich/welcome.cfm?lng=0&ids=491&idc=41751 http://www.ticinomanagement.ch/ShowArticle.aspx?ParentCatID=0&CatID=76&PageID=993 http://www.fiorimusicalisvizzeraitaliana.ch/interpreti/maristella-patuzzi.html http://www.amicidellamusicatrapani.it/articles/artisti/0034-maristella-patuzzi-violinista.html http://www.classiques.ch/en/artists_2012.php http://www.bloomingpedia.org/wiki/Maristella_Patuzzi http://www.cooperazione.ch/article35883 http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2005/06/23/un-violino-nel-chiostro-con-maristella-patuzzi.html

and much more --Motopoeta (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)--Motopoeta (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here. I would encourage you to create it on Italian Wikipedia as I don't think it would pass here. MBisanz talk 14:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

RfA concluded

MBisanz, may I now safely thank my supporters? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. MBisanz talk 03:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, MBisanz. Given some of the issues raised, I think some added RfA instructions and guidelines may be in order. It never occurred to me that thanking 10 or 12 of my oldest Wiki colleagues and 4 or 5 of my most vocal supporters breached some understood, but unwritten anti-solicitation protocol. Likewise, the canvassing notices seemed obvious breaches of the written policy to me, but no one was willing to act to remove the canvassing notices. Not sure what to make of that. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that any "unofficial" RfA guidelines are desperately needed. But unfortunately achieving consensus on their contents has (from what I gather) so far eluded the community. I'm not sure what to make of that, either. -- Trevj (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Trev, I would hope we could come to a pretty quick consensus regarding an absolute prohibition on canvassing of any kind during RfAs. If someone also wants to ban thank-yous by candidates during RfAs, I would not object to that, either. I think we could get that done in two fairly simple declaratory sentences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Clarify by all means, but the candidate's actions in spamming thank you messages before the closure is already adequately covered in existing candidate guidelines What RfA contributors look for and hope not to see. Leaky Caldron 12:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Leaky, you have made your feelings clear. I disagree with your characterization of my thank-yous as "spam," for the reasons mentioned above. They were not intended to be "promotional" or canvassing. Please AGF. Just as you assume that thank-yous are already adequately covered under the rather vague existing RfA guidelines, I assume that actual canvassing notices in various talk spaces were already prohibited by WP:CANVASSING, but apparently were not adequately covered in a sufficiently specific manner for some editors. Perhaps both issues could use some very specific clarification. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The actions of other's should have been taken care of by Admins. In that regards I think you were entitled to better practical help than you received. No harm at all in clarifying, you could suggest changes at the relevant policy/guideline pages, while the iron is still hot so to speak. Leaky Caldron 13:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Given some of the "heat" that still seems to be rising from my RfA, I'm not sure I'm the correct person to propose the recommended clarifications. Perhaps, if you, Trevj and I -- the concerned RfA candidate and two "opposed" voters -- jointly proposed the clarifications they would be better received. I am concerned that if I make the proposal solo that some folks might simply perceive that as some form of "sour grapes." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I think Thankspam (post-closure, or very near closure) shows a degree of courtesy and appreciation for other's efforts that I look for in an editor. I do think if you thank, everyone should be thanked, not just the supporters. The neutrals and opposes also have taken the time to review contribs, interactions, histories, and to voice their views, and their feedback may be helpful moving forward to make the editor a better member of the community, regardless of the outcome. I personally would strongly oppose any attempt to make an anti-Thankspam rule. One puppy's opinion, your mileage may vary. KillerChihuahua 20:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you make a good point, KC, about thanking neutrals and constructive critics, too. I just spent two days thanking my RfA supporters, with some small degree of personalization. I'm not a big fan of cut-and-pasted thank-yous; cut-and-pastes lack a measure of sincerity. Hence why I prefer not to refer to thank-yous as "spam." Like you, I believe thank-yous and other appropriate expressions of gratitude are simply good manners. However, having witnessed my own GF being questioned because I thanked a dozen or so of my oldest wiki-friends and a handful of my most vocal supporters during my RfA, I would prefer never to see another candidate's GF questioned in such a manner. Disallowing thank-yous until the end of the RfA will protect future candidates from similar situations. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I see you inputted the final tally manually. Did you know I updated it to automatically do that for you? All you need is the close rational.—cyberpower OfflineBe my Valentine 05:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I remembered that, but I saw the instructions on WP:CRAT still pointed at {{Finaltally}} and the instructions there didn't reference your change. MBisanz talk 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Base_Act
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_16&oldid=1188197146"