User talk:MBisanz/Archive 5

RE: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigHairRef

Hi,

I've been on and off WP for a few weeks now (which will likely continue untill May), so sorry for the delay in this, just wanted to ask about your categorisation of the page.

I just wanted to ask if it's standard procedure to categorise a declined nomination as an unsuccessful RfA? It's not a complaint don't worry, it's just it would appear a declined nom would never have been an RfA rather than one that failed? Perhaps needing a new category?

I will admit to being slightly selfish reasons in asking, as I wouldn't really want to have a "failed" RfA if/when I do run in the future, rather than one that was declined.

Thanks BigHairRef | Talk 23:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No one would consider it a failed RFA, but right now the only categories for RFAs are Successful, Unsuccessful, and Redirects. I could of course delete the declined RFA if you wanted, but I didn't want to be bold without seeking user permissions, so I've just be categorizing them as unsuccessful. Should you ever run for RFA, no one would look down on you though, some of the crats on Wikipedia have declined RFA noms labeled "unsuccessful". MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football)

I'm not sure I agree with your closure of this AFD. While the headcount was only 5-4 in favour of deletion, two of the keep !voters made no argument, just agreeing with the arguments of Paul McDonald, whose essay, WP:CFBCOACH, has been widely discredited as setting an excessively low bar for inclusion. Wordbuilder may also have been canvassed at WT:CFB. I feel a delete closure might have been more appropriate; what do you think? Stifle (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, had I been voting, I'd of redirected to Belhaven College#Athletics, but since no one said that, I really couldn't just go and close that way. Of course nothing prevents redirection without an AfD so that might a thought for that and other semi-notable coaches. MBisanz ^talk 11:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Shepard redirects

Are you going to do the same for the other half-dozen article (Abby, Ducky, etc.)? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't planned on it, since the AFD tag was only on that one article, I see one of the AFDs closed as delete, which is fine, I just saw the votes to redirect it and saw that as the option that seemed to have eh most consensus (weighing the keeps, redirects, and deletes that mentioned the article I redirected it to). MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Texas-Tech-University-logo.png

I would recommend listing this at WP:IFD for further and better discussion. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Result of vote

You recently closed the AfD for Blue Fin Black discpiles, saying the vote was for re-direct. I count 2 votes to re-direct and 4 to delete (2 saying speedy delete). How did you arrive at the decision to re-direct? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I went on the strength of the argument that there was a related article that covered this non-notable topic. Also I factored in JBsupreme saying there was not enough for a merge or keep, but not ruling out a redirect. Basically, I was more convinced by the redirect votes. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just for backgound understanding: The Gangster Disciples are a notable large, multi-state gang. This is nothing more than a localized set, which is why I submitted it as it seems like local interest only. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

On AfD patrol tonight

am surprised we haven't E/Ced on a close yet since we both seem to be working the log from the 20th :) Hope all is good in your world. TravellingCari 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I work up from the bottom, so when I saw you, I stopped. :) MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

*chuckle* I normally do the same but saw those were closed so I went top-down. Felt like I needed to do something productive and useful between Wikibreaks. Have a good night! :) TravellingCari 02:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Boston Medical Group

Hi, you just deleted this article while I was working on it trying to add references. I figured I still had time because I thought AfDs are supposed to last 5 days, but you closed this in less than 4. Could you please restore it and give at it least one more day to see if my revised article passes muster? DHowell (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, although consensus appears rather strong. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see my revisions in the article and my comments in the AfD. DHowell (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please also restore the talk page. Thank you. DHowell (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Premature closures create dissent where none previously existed

I disagree with your decision to prematurely close this AfD. While the nomination will very likely end in a "keep" decision, there is no justification for closing the discussion early. In particular, the discussion meets none of the requirements for a speedy keep and the page remains essentially unimproved despite the blind assertions by several discussion participants that is might perhaps someday be improvable. AfD discussions are designed to run for 5 days. This has run for barely over three. Please reopen this debate and let it run its normal course. Rossami (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll wait, but consensus looks pretty solid. Early closes of clear AFDs (all of the comments so far are keep), help direct editors' time to more controversial deletion discussions that require more input to derive consensus. MBisanz ^talk 08:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Kotava

I note that the article about Kotava was deleted. Only three votations and four days for discussion ! Once again victim of the bad faith and refusal of some people without culture and who do not examine in any manner the quoted links. The world of the artificial languages is a crab basket. But the important thing is elsewhere, in real speakers and the ISO criteria are very more serious than the judgements-like of students or a database of the Google god.

Incidentally, I inform to you that Kotava is one of the languages of the MediaWiki software (version 1.12 and following) of Wikipedia. Nice contradiction!

And if you want it in Kotava:

Rabaté da teliz icde Kotava su zo sular. Anton baroya brudara is balemoy viel ta keyaksera ! Ware konviele kosik ke rotuxara is vewara ke arayiskaf abictan meinde rindes va ozwani gluyasiki. Tamava ke vegedunaveem tir tulkita. Vexe zolone arlize tir, koe ageltaf usikeem ise ISO ludeem tid lodekemapafa dam yona ravesikafa malhejara ok origak ke Google lorik.

Ostik va rin walzé da Kotava tir tana ava ke MediaWiki talpeyot (1.12 siatos az ar) ke Wikipedia. Kevkalinhira ! Wikimistusik (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I really do apologize if my comments on Admin Notice Board concerning Martinphi and Shoemaker seemed like an attack against you. I was obviously concerned about what was going on and that sense may have run over into my comments about the "fringe" article situation. On reading my comment over I wondered, so wanted to make sure you knew no attack intended and your comments were well taken. :o| (olive (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

Nah, didn't bother me at all. Cheers. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't made someone's day!

See [1] - Googlepedia12 is very unhappy with you. :-) Doug Weller (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

IfD!

I was going through the PD images and wondered if you knew how to do a deletion or place this abomination (image) for deletion: [2] The uploader's main activity is to place this orphaned nonsense on WP. What a disgrace. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The instructions at WP:IFD should be clear enough. If not, write up the reason to delete and I'll file one for you. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Reasons: Single orphaned image by absent uploader. Image is out of Wikipedia scope. There are better images of this part of the human body. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done at [[3]]. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank You. I know how to do an AfD but not an IfD. I don't know why some people feel the need to take images of their anatomy...and then not use it anywhere. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Austin (actor) deletion

You closed this discussion nearly a day and a half early. Please reopen it with an appropriate note to allow a full discussion period. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a rather clear consensus to delete for an AFD that was in its last day of being open, I do not believe consensus would change by reopening. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

At the time it was deleted, it had 37 hours to run. Per this discussion, [[4]], the consensus appears to be that such premature closures are inappropriate. I, for one, would like to comment on it. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to decline to reopen the AFD, it was a clear SNOW-type consensus and at this point you've been blocked for two weeks for disruption and I see many similar requests to re-open AFDs to other admins, I believe this is an appropriate position. MBisanz ^talk 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Macquarie University Rugby League Club

Hi, I think Macquarie University Rugby League Club should also have been deleted following the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirimba Polecats. WWGB (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Correct, didn't see it since it was a multi-AFD. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected page

Loads of IP vandalism showing up in my watchlist for your page, so semi-protected your talk for 24 hours. Don't thank me for the reversions - not my doing! Fritzpoll (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Works for me, thanks! MBisanz ^talk 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corned beef sandwich

Hi, you closed this discussion as having no consensus. My impression was that a couple of contributors were for keeping, but the vast majority were for delete, and they were the ones quoting reasons and policy. No argument other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was cited on the keep side, as far as I can see. While I realise that consensus is a slippery thing to define, I thought that the closing admin would look at the strength of the arguments. In this case, a minority view was expressed very vocally. Please can you take another look? Of course, you're the admin, I'm not, and you still consider the views to be balanced life will go on, with or without a Corned Beef Sandwich wiki. Can't believe how a sandwich has stirred emotions so much! thanks for you time, TrulyBlue (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I know, I don't even like corned beef sandwiches. I closed as no consensus primarily since there seemed to be some confusion over the article topic, with some commenters confusing it with Reuben sandwich. Realistically, I could have probably also closed it as a Merge, but I felt there was still a decent amount of confusion out there to throw it into no consensus. Granted, it can always be redirected or merged without another AFD discussion. MBisanz ^talk 13:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I doubt that the corned beef sandwich fans would be happy with a redirect/merge. Maybe when tempers have calmed a little... Cheers, TrulyBlue (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on AE

Please email me at your earliest convenience with what Domer asked you to do. If it's the editor I'm thinking of, he's been warned explicitly that he was cruising for an indefinite block if he continued to bring it up. SirFozzie (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have your email, can you emailuser me so I can forward? It was a clear threat that if I did not withdraw my support for sanctions on Domer, he would out another editor. MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Done :) I have emailuser on for me as well. SirFozzie (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 20:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. *sighs*. SirFozzie (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Emergenetics

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Emergenetics. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka++ 01:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hemanshu

The RFC does not seem to be working. What's the next step? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 10:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Image talk:Autocad 2009 interfacewithVista.png"

Thanks for deleting that talk page with nonsensical content. I'm getting a feeling that edit was by an external spambot, which I also noticed in most talk pages, with similar happening.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 05:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Emmalina at DRV

Hey Matt, just wanted to let you know that the Emmalina AFD you closed is being discussed at DRV - Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_28#Emmalina. Apologies if you already knew but I couldn't see any notification here. Cheers, Sarah 03:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

Please see Talk:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. I can't find the redirect discussion perhaps because of the backlog. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FritzBot

Hi Bisanz. I was wondering if you could provide me a link where you had the conversation with Fritz about running the bot for French communes Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that some time ago when it was approved? Or is this a more recent thing? MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fritz has informed me that he can't run the bot the create articles as he was authorised to do. He did however say that he had been discussing a new proposal with you very recently about running cleaning up tasks with his bot instead, namely adding infboxes to French communes which he believed required reapproval. I was under the impression he had spoken to you about it, but I couldn't find any discussion the two of you had had at BAG or anywhere else. Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yea, he had sent me a message on IRC asking if he would need a new approval for new bot tasks and I had said yes and pointed him at WP:RBA. MBisanz ^talk 12:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah thats why I couldn't find it. Could you provide me the specific WP:RBA link I can't seem to find it Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Fritz has written the new RBA yet for this task. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow COI Question

Hi. I noticed that you offered a much needed neutral point of view a few months ago in a debate similar to one I'm having now. If you have the time can you have a look at Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow#Inclusion_of_.22Safeguarded_Material.22. Thanks --Spirit76 (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna sit out that debate this time around, sorry. MBisanz ^talk 12:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD of My Lego Network

Hey :). You closed this AfD as 'merge' on the 13th October, but you seem to have left it hanging (looks to me like you may have got distracted :P). The AfD notice is still on the article, and the article remains unmerged - could you perhaps finish the job? Cheers, _TalkIslander 22:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd de-AFD'd it, but someone else needs to merge it since I'm just the AFD closer. Good catch. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Vihang A Naik

Dear MBisanz,

I saw that the discussion on Vihang A Naik let to the deletion of the article--but to my surprise the article is back up again almost immediately. Is that kosher? And that newly entered article is a carbon copy, as far as I can tell, of the deleted version (I know because I did extensive editing on it before it was deleted). Moreover, I have a gut-feeling that there's an COI issue there, that the user who put it up is none other than the subject (and the nominator on the AfD felt the same way, I noticed). Please advise. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, its a copy, deleted. Thanks for noticing. MBisanz ^talk 12:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you for your quick action. Have a nice day! Drmies (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mixtape_Messiah_4

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mixtape_Messiah_4. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dc 0808 (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Fronsdorf

I don't understand why I have been blocked, I have left messages on my talk page but nothing has come of it, and this is the only way I know to contact people as I am currently blocked. Can this block be lifted so I can do more than view pages. MarkFD (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am Fronsdorf, I am only started this account as my one is blocked. I am not a Morton Stalker. MarkFD (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Dufour

User talk:Steve Dufour believes he is still blocked because he apparently can't edit still. I noticed that the log indicates otherwise but thought maybe you could look into it. Thanks and sorry for the bother! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 02:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Change of name for feature detection navigation box

If you administrative advantages of changing the name of the feature navigation box for the feature detection (computer vision) page this is fine for me, provided that it works of course. I'm sure you can find the rather large number of Wikipedia article that include this navigation box. Please note that there is also a separate navigation box for the scale-space article. Tpl (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User:E0N - Redirect for Review, Please

Hi, I would like to submit this redirect for review: User:E0N. Thanks for your service. I hope this is the appropriate way to submit a matter of this nature. Again, thanks, --VictorC (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you can look at WP:RFD or give me your rationale for deletion and I'll propose it. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The user redirected both his talk page and user page to the Wikipedia Main Page. I looked up his history, the user page before being blanked had a statement saying something to the effect of "taking an extended break" which I suppose is slightly immaterial. In any case, the fourth criteria, states that "the redirect makes no sense," applies here. The Wikipedia Main Page isn't a user talk page; isn't a user page by any stretch of imagination. So, I'm submitting User talk:E0N and User:E0N to the WP:RFD list. Oh, and take note, the name is spelled E "Zero" N, not "E O N." Again thanks for your service, time and trouble. --VictorC (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I just realized I can simply add this on my own. Please allow me to do this, and thanks for the help.--VictorC (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

why did you delete Mixtape Messiah 4 article

Hello, when i went to look up a hip-hop mixtape i was planning on buying but the article was deleted and wikipedia said you had something to do with it may i ask why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.122.31 (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixtape Messiah 4 where the consensus was to delete teh article. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

community discussion my ass you idiots dont know anything about mixtapes.

Well this mixtape is worthy of having an article and many people will want to look it up because many people waited long for it and it is an important part of the artist's career that mixtape was a very significant album and should have an article.76.101.122.31 (talk)

I'm not undeleting the article, take it to WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the deletion review and that made no sense a quote i heard was "not notable because of lack of media coverage like 99% of mixtapes" that was really stupid to say and im not saying you said it but obviously these people were not qualified to evaluate a deletion in anything that involves mixtapes or even hip-hop in general because out of all mixtapes that you guys choose to delete you choose to delete one of the most important mixtape series in hip-hop and you need to cleanup your mess.76.101.122.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

Image:BLP_Spec_Warn.svg

Would you be able to explain at Image:BLP_Spec_Warn.svg why this duplicate is "required for tracking purposes"? This, that and the other _[talk] 09:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is used on a warning template for arbcom sanctions at WP:BLPLOG that can only be given by admins. To prevent abuse of people warning users to intimidate them into keeping quiet, I use this image to track all uses of the template, even substed uses. MBisanz ^talk 14:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The National Conference Center

The article The National Conference Center you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The National Conference Center for eventual comments about the article. Well done! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! — Rlevse • Talk • 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you inspect these images on WikiCommons?

Dera Matt, I'm sorry to disturb you. I just made this post on your Commons account and was wondering you could inspect it: [5]

• One final thing. Have a safe and happy Halloween in New York. Regards from Metro Vancouver, BC, Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Kangguo

Thanx for your msg. Please enlighten me. Look at the new page I created for the Journal entitled "ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software". It's Wiki-linked to proper sources. But why is that flagged as a problem? Kangguo (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Kangguo

An invite for you

The 36th and final NotTheWikipediaWeekly Come for the final episode under this name on Sunday, November 2. The whole episode will be about recapping and discussing previous episodes. I am hosting this and look forward to as many of the more experienced NTWW's come to this episode. Plus, we may get a new guest, but we'll see. Anyway, its tomorrow @ 20:00 UTC. Please come! Mitch32(UP) 12:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Imort IE logo to Sinhala Wikipedia

Dear Friend,

I am Asiri,user of Sinahala Wikipedia[www.si.wikipedia.org]. I've come accrocss IE logo to your talk page. Please can you help me to import that image to Sinhala Wikipedia.Because I asking, I don't know any possibilities(copyright)to have re upload same image through Sinahala Wiki once again.Can you please help me to understand this.--Asiri wiki (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can you link to the image you are asking about? MBisanz ^talk 11:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean this Image:Internet Explorer 7 Logo.png --Asiri wiki (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just download the image as you would any other image, reupload it to the Sinhala Wiki, linking to that page as your source, and you'll be fine. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much friend! --Asiri wiki (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi MBisanz, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

request for restoring the page

Dear

you deleted the page Pushpendra Nath Pathak due to notability problem. Now this person has been announced BJP candidate for Madhya Pradesh legislative election 2008 from the Maharajpur Seat please use this reference for check the notability http://www.bjp.org/. If you think this is enough please restore the page.http://www.bjp.org/Press/nov_2008/nov_0108a_p_h.pdf. mentioned on SR#18 and seat no.48

06:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I would recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pushpendra Nath Pathak and looking at WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 14:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oi' bro, why did you delete shoe cricket?

Why did you delete shoe cricket, it's the meeeaaan!!!!!!!!!!!!! game bro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.94.251 (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoe cricket MBisanz ^talk 14:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

admin coaching declined

I see why you declined my admin coaching request and i would like it if you adopted me. Coolgyingman (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Z Corp.

Hi MBisanz, I see you closed the AfD for this article as a keep. Could you please move it to its correct title, Z Corporation? I can't do it myself because the target title is protected. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 19:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Soil

Could you elaborate on your close of this AfD, please, either here or on the talk page? I'm a little bewildered as to how you arrived at "keep", as there were no policy-based arguments presented for keep at all. Cheers, HiDrNick!

No one else at the debate commented in favor of deletion. Even if their arguments were weak, the lack of any comments for deletion precluded that as a final option of dealing with the article. MBisanz ^talk 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Marc lachance

Could you please go back and reconsider the deletion of this article? Absolutely nobody responded to the extensive edits I made at towards the end of the process, including you. I proved the notability of the topic by adding multiple reliable sources. • Freechild'sup? 02:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You can try working on it more and taking it to DRV, but since none of the individuals who commented prior to your changes came back and changed their comments, I really couldn't close another way. You might try WP:DRV on the grounds of new information. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Marc_lachance

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marc_lachance. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. • Freechild'sup? 06:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought I did it right but the info here doesn't show up here. Could you fix that for me? • Freechild'sup? 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Proper ok for image?

As a Commons admin, you might want to check the permissions status of Image:SteveKantrowitzPhoto.jpg; the rationale doesn't quite seem to be what's required, as far as I can see, no OTRS ticket number, etc. Risker (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, the uploader has been blocked for such things before. I've tagged it as lacking permission, so it will be deleted unless OTRS gets an email in the next week. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for you strong support in my rfa! And all of the times you have helped me on the project and all of your hard work on my AC! •If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy• ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please adopt me!!!

I have and adoptme on my page, but i would really like it if you adopted me p.s. I have just put an edit on the article "earthquakes" and the section is called "earthquake fault types" please review me and tell me how i am doing!. Coolgyingman (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not adopting anyone at the moment, you might try asking another administrator. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ok but it said you were on the adoption page Coolgyingman (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Support/en is wrongly stating that the donation buttons are CC BY SA, while they are GFDL. The original puzzle was released under GFDL. Cary bass made his buttons and uploaded them under GFDL, but didn't credit the original creators of the puzzle : [6] [7] [8].

The donation page state they are CC BY SA, but it's wrong. Also, it doesn't provide nay link to the button's pages, or credit the authors, which is a copyright violation. ANd now, you decide to change all buttons' licence ?! You have no authority to do that, only the creator can do so : http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MBisanz

--Lilyu (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no authority period. I just do whatever it looks like Cary tells me to do. So I assumed everything uploaded there is GFDL, unless there is an indication otherwise, the new donation form says those buttons are CC, so I change them to CC. I'm not the person to take this up with as I don't actually have the authority to make any real decisions. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Lilyu, I was given PSD files and did not make the original graphics, so please don't go throwing accusations around. Secondly, containing as it does elements of Wikimedia's copyright logo and is simple and unoriginal and hardly meets the threshhold of creativity required to hold a license. You may do better complaining on foundation-l or bring in the original creator to complain before leveling accusations against myself or Mbisanz and creating insinuations against either of us. Bastique ^demandez 05:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

... --Lilyu (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a breath, and look at it calmly : whatever licence is used, GFDL or CC BY SA, the page where the image was uploaded need to say who is the author of the button. That's one thing, that look quite evident, no ? Than, if another page use the image, it need to wether give a link to the previous image, or a link to the licence's text and credit the authors.

Than, if the the button use another image licenced GFDL, it's a derivative work, and it should also be GFDL, and crediting the creators of the first image (the wiki puzzle).

Finally, if the wikimedia foundation wants to claim to hold copyright over the wiki puzzle image, the board needs to state so, and discuss with the creator of the image, or fill up a complain.--Lilyu (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Two points

As was made crystal clear to me when I was given access to the WMF wiki; it is not a content wiki and does not have to abide fair use rules as enwiki does with an WP:NFCC, so the whole thing of linking to the sources, etc I may do if I have time, but it is not a requirement

If the license should be changed, if the board needs to say something, what the threshold of originality is are all thing that are well above my pay grade of unpaid-volunteer-who-does-what-he's-told, those sound like questions for a mailing list or someone who actually has authority to make decisions on the WMF wiki (not me). Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I was quite surprised by your and Cary's reaction to my message, they were really not wikilove and open minded. It tooks me nearly an hour to find even who i could talk to, and english is not my mother language : it's hard to try to explain things in a foreign language, i did all of that just to warn there was something small to fix about the licenses of this buttons. I do understand meta might be quite different from Wikipedias & Commons, but i was expecting experienced peoples as you and Cary to know that uploading images without licenses or tagging it cc-BY-sa (and saying to everyone : use them under CC BY SA) without saying who is the author, might be something to fix. I'm just fed up now, and discouraged, forget it...--Lilyu (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucky I have your ACE2008 page watchlisted...

...or this might have persisted for more than a minute. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I keep trying and failing to recruit qualified candidates. Woe is Wikipedia! MBisanz ^talk 17:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually think we have a pretty good crop - certainly good enough that we should be able to find seven better than me. But, like the edit summary said, an honour to be considered. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ADO page deletion

So if I've got this right, Wiki wants a document from an authority acceptable to Wiki, saying that Avalonian Druidry is 'real'. Wiki has already accepted Druidry as being verified, but individual branches of Druidry are not until individually verified. Since you are accepting publications by members of listed organizations as verification for their own orgs, does that mean Wiki will accept ADO member publications as verification for ADO? Or is there another criteria especially for smaller organizations?

Simply being referenced in other written sources is not a validation of the truth or value of a spiritual path, BTW. This is especially true when the sources being referenced are outside sources only by virtue of having been published to the public. Being referenced in mainstream publications is merely a stamp of approval from the dominant culture.

The intent of the article was not to 'prove' ADO beliefs (no spirituality can do that), but simply to let people know that this type of Druidry exists, and how it is or is not the same as mainstream Druidry. So... what kinds of verification would be acceptable for an emerging spirituality?

Thank you for your time. MVLB (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC).

I just closed the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avalon Druid Order (ADO), you would need to ask the people who commented there about the article content. MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

AN subpages

Did you know there are 928 pages as subpages of the administrators' noticeboard (including redirects)? That includes subpages of both AN and ANI and AN3 and AE, and all their archives. I have done a spreadsheet sorting them by main type (AN, ANI, A3, AE) and then by secondary types (archive, other [footers, headers, redirects and main pages], subpages and subpage archives). Would you be interested in a copy? This was prompted, incidentally, by me noticing your recent subpaging of an ANI thread, and I got to wondering just how many of these subpages there are. I know from experience that subpages can easily get lost among the listing of archives (though all should theoretically be linked from an archive somewhere), so I thought it was about time (unless it has already been done) for a template or page to be made listing all the AN and ANI subpages (AN3 and AE don't seem to have subpages other than archives or structural stuff). Anyway, for AN and ANI combined, there are 77 subpages and 7 archives for two of those subpages. I hope you don't mind me listing them here. Please feel free to move them somewhere else. What I was thinking was that a list could be maintained somewhere (maybe integrating with the archiving process), or a template could be used to tag the subpages and put them in a category? If there was some way of extracting the date each subpage was created and annotating the link with that date, that would be good as well. What do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem dropping it here, I'll probably subpage it to my userspace somewhere and try to figure out what to do with it. There should be a manual archive of these pages somewhere, I just don't know what is best a Wikipedia: index page like we do for RFCs or a Template: like we do for AN. Any ideas? MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/All and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/U/User:. So someone has done topical archiving (something different from listing subpages) before, but those pages don't seem to have been updated since February 2008. I haven't a clue what the system is at RFC. The AN template? You mean Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox and the templates listed there? Incidentally, there is a note there about a new bot being needed to do the updating of that template. And this (referring to Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox/Search) looks interesting. Have you used the new search tools yet? I summarised them at WP:SEARCHING and used them to generate the lists at WT:BLP#Listing relevant BLP pages. I might drop nixeagle a note and point him here and at WT:BLP. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:SOFTBLOCK?

My IP was blocked for things I didn't do. Generally shared IPs should be soft blocked as noted in WP:IP. thank you--Ipatrol (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and when I see an IP adding a userbox as vandalism my thought is that the IP is a logged out account and if I hardblock it, I'll flush out the account. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Need assistance

please see this thanks Enigma ^message 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Risker fixed it. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Now there's a sock editing the page. Enigma ^message 04:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've hardblocked the IP and removed talk page privileges; will see what happens. And yes, I did check the geolocate, so I will be keeping an eye. Risker (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We're dealing with a very determined vandal. User talk:XavierFox42 Can the user be blocked indefinitely (e-mail blocked as well) and the talk page full protected? Thanks, Enigma ^message 05:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Boodlesthecat

I think this block is a mistake. Please see here. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice one!

That was one topic that didn't have much excuse to exist, IMHO. dougweller (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that once something hits 70K of text and the board is over 200K, that is the time to subpage. Met my rule, so I did it. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a good rule. I wonder if there are any commonalities among most topics that get that long. dougweller (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a good bet that tag teams are frequently a common factor.  :) --Elonka 22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the academic team vs the nationalist team. In team sports, when a player doesn't play according to the accepted rules, that player is admonished by the referee to play fair and ejected from the game if he persists. Where's the referee, and why are some looking the other direction? 128.226.130.90 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Page title

Hi, just curious why you chose this particular page title?[9] I would have stuck with the name of the original thread, or "ChrisO's subpage". --Elonka 21:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I couldn't include a link in the page name and it seemed that it was a thread about ChrisO started by you and that throughout it people referenced behavior by both you and ChrisO, so that seemed to be the theme of the thread that people would be looking for in the archives . MBisanz ^talk 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true that I started the thread, but it's not really about me. In fact, if you scan through the comments in the thread, my name doesn't even come up that often. The main topic is ChrisO's subpage. --Elonka 22:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris G bot

Hi Bisanz,

Could you comment on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chris G Bot (4th request)?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Human Values

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human values as delete, but the duplicate article Human Values with a capital V, is still lurking around. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)  Done Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 10:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mylasa

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the Battle of Mylasa had been moved to Battle of the Marsyas. I think you may have just deleted the redirect and not the actual article. AniMate 10:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)  DoneMBisanz ^talk 20:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mentorship

You recently edited WP:MENTOR. Would you be interested in reviewing the three new sections I posted at WT:MENTOR? Incidentally, I went looking for User:MBisanz/RfBan to see if WP:MENTOR was linked (it wasn't) and I found this, which made me laugh! Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Missing tag on WP:MOSNUM

Can you please tag this protected page properly? I really like those big notices up top, as it draws people into the consensus making process which I believe would help a lot on this disputed issue. Count me among those tired of arguing about linking years in articles, as I can't seem to get through to the current WP:OWNers that historical context is important. (Nor do I quite get the more general consensus, what with HTML being 20 years old, that blue links are some evil scourge to be used as a last resort to only the most arcane of subjects -- the well known events of, say, 472 not apparently among these.) I am upset that they are using bots and scripts to force this change throughout the project by fiat, especially as ArbCom has frowned on such antics before, and they know it. But having made all my arguments on the talk page repeatedly, and lead the horse to water, I'm trying to resist the urge to drown it in the process of making it drink. I've asked repeatedly for these people claiming consensus, despite all evidence to the contrary, to file an RFC, but to no avail. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess you are too busy. I'll just make a request at WP:AN. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I would put the tag, but the protection is due to expire soon. At this point, I don't see it having an impact on the conversation much. An RFC sounds like an excellent idea for such a dispute. MBisanz ^talk 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But I don't have time (no pun intended?) to get riled up in these WP space disputes lately. I'm one of these "shades of gray" types (much like our Catechism), yet the nature of our project draws a lot of people who see the world in only black or white: Geographical links good, temporal links bad. I basically have time enough to patrol a vastly pared back watchlist for stupidity once a week (if that) and little else. Some days the project feels like less of an encyclopedia and more like a MUD, but oh well, I can only hope there are enough people who appreciate Wikipedia as a research tool to maintain some common sense while I'm mostly AFK. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures deleted without any discussion

Why didn't your discuss these pictures with the uploader before assuming copyright violation? What is your basis for asserting copyright violation? I created these pictures myself, or based them on other public domain images. --Jonathan108 (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you took those images from this website [10] which asserts full copyright on its materials. Posting them here is a violation of their copyright. MBisanz ^talk 20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That is my own website! I have donated the use of the image to the public domain. That image is all over the web by now.--Jonathan108 (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you email a list of the images you are releasing to the public domain to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so it can be legally recorded? I trust you, but there are so many impersonators on the internet that we need to be sure it is actually the owner of that website that is releasing the images. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I just sent the email. Feel free to send a message to the address on the site to confirm that I own the site. Thanks! --Jonathan108 (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

All restored at Commons per OTRS permissions. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you be my knight in shining armour

Dear Mr. Bisanz, firstly may I say how much I have enjoyed looking at your photographs here, seldom does one see such relaxed posture, and one so at ease with their surroundings. However, I am a little concerned about the pink eyes, one dry sherry on a Sunday morning is one thing, but.....well you do have very pink eyes. I only mention it as one who cares, such a pity if that finely toned physique were to be ruined by the demon drink. However, to business why I am here? I hear you ask, rather nervously. I note that here you say, I am likely to run for the local council elections. Yet, that evil Italian boy tells me that I have insufficient edits? Can he possibly be right, do you know more than he? Quite frankly that's not hard. He no doubt wants a clear field for himself. Like so many of our finest Arbs and Admins I have not the least desire to write pages and perform mundane tasks, no, not at all, like so many I am bred for finer more important tasks. Perhaps you could confirm - am I eligible? No, no you naughty man, I mean to run for Arbcom. Thank you so much for your support, I know I can rely on your vote......such a pity about poor Mrs. Palin, you all have my sympathy, there are far too many mousses, gnus and elks and such wild vicious animals cluttering up your beautiful country. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My lady, as I do read the requirements for you eligibility, thou must have attained the age of 18 years. No more than that is required. You may, at your leisure, wish to consult with my dear friends Ultraexactzz and AGK who are ever the wise gentlemen in this matter. MBisanz ^talk 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I am sure you are quite wrong, there is a minimum edit requirement, what is it? and do I have it? I also note that this year dearest Jimbo and his friends want the real life names and addresses of all prospective Arbcom members, I am quite used to men using subterfuge to find my phone number, so that is no problem - odd though, that it is not more publicised, because it was definitely not a requirement last year, of this I am 100% sure. Just one of those little things that creep in when men want ladies to put themselves forward, I suppose - the fiends. The number of edits required if you please? Isn't this all going to be exiting - can you not feel the thrill creeping all over you? Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the ACE page quite clearly ma' lady, and I see nothing of this 1000 edit count rule, which I doth recall from last year, best to inquire of my good chums for a definitive ruling. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, It would seem that you are both correct on the matter. Lo, I see that as recently as Wednesday last, the policy was that 1000 edits were required to stand as a candidate - thus. In anticipation of the many seekers of the office, the page and its policy were rewritten, and the 1000 edit requirement was inadvertantly lost - thus. Since candidates have submitted their names for consideration without the requirement's oversight, I am uncertain of its force - So, you may be eligible after all. However, while you may have the right to be a candidate, it is possible that a lack of experience would limit your success in the endeavour. I had the rare honor of standing as a candidate myself, lo these many years ago. With nary but a few edits to my name, though, it was not the triumph it might have been. So, in short - You can probably run, and the best of luck to you, but it might not be unwise to wait. Yours, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh you are clever Mr Alcatraz, thank you so much. How wise you are. Should one or shouldn't one? I'm quite of a dither - does one really want the bother or is it one's duty? I'm not the least bothered about lack of experience, who has written less than most of the present incumbents? and just look at the remarkable job they have done. I shall have to think about it some more, aren't they silly to have left such an important factor off the page? Perhaps they don't think it's important. Oh and by the way, as I'm here, dearest Mr. Bisanz, I know you won't mind me saying this: not a patterned tie, with a patterned shirt, not even with the contrasting collar - I know your American, dear, but it's not sartorial. Well I shall have to think on, I may have a word with our constitutional King, he may want a constitutional Queen, now wouldn't that be nice? Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Cat addition

No worries, I appreciated the apparent vote of confidence. Euryalus (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate questions and OTRS access

Hi, Matt. Can you look in the future for question of this nature and mark them as irrelevant? I think asking a candidate why they no longer have OTRS access is entirely too personal, since the rationale for granting or revoking OTRS access may involve privacy related issues. As well, the conversations about one's suitability for OTRS should have no bearing on one's suitability for candidacy or other issues on wiki. We've turned down some very good contributors, because of reasons that have nothing to do with trust or character.

If one's elected position requires access to some queue or another, we will, of course, grant them said access regardless. Thanks. Bastique ^demandez 03:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly Cary, I understand the uncomfortable situation such questions place both the person being asked and the OTRS admin corp and will keep an eye out for such situations in the future. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway (film)

Do you not normally provide rationales with your closings? Given that the !votes were 5-4 in favor of keeping (including the nom) I don't see a consensus to keep. I hope you were not swayed by the phony sources cited by one editor. Fletcher (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well first a majority of people favored keeping it, second, I am not in place to judge the sources, merely if people believe the sources meet our policies, which is seems a good number did. At best it could have been a "no consensus" which still would have resulted in the article being kept. MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fletcher (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Consentblock

The template, though used infrequently, is used (check what links to it) and there is another example on the unblock-l list tonight. If you don't mind, I will be restoring the template. -- Avi (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, feel free, I may tweak it with a tmbox at some point though. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your threat

I do not appreciate your accusation that I have been edit-warring "for the past couple of weeks" at MOSNUM, and believe that it is false.

Think carefully before making such accusations, which are very unwelcome, just as is your threat to block me.

How dare you finish your note with a sarcastic "Happy editing" after issuing such a threat.

I am going to take every action possible to see that your behaviour is reconciled with the expectations for administrators. You should resign immediately, in my view. Tony (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)l

For the historical record, my basis for warning Tony1, Locke Cole, and Arthur Rubin that if they continue to edit war at WP:MOSNUM I will block them was

Tony1:[11], [12], [13], [14], [15]

Locke Cole: [16], [17], [18], [19]

Arthur Rubin: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]

I will also note that Kotniski (talk · contribs) and Tennis expert (talk · contribs) were aggressively editing the page prior to the Nov. 3rd protection, but since they have not edited it since then, I felt it was not necessary to warn them. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick reminder when closing AfDs as redirect

Please be sure to knock off any assessment banners like {{vgproj}} when redirecting pages. It helps keep our WP:1.0 stats accurate. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I use an AFD closing script that supposedly automates everything. I will have to tell its maintainer about this so he can code it into the next version. Thanks for the note. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi MBisanz. Which AfD-closing script are you referring to here? Automation sounds good. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Insert the change I made in this edit into your monobook.js. Press Ctrl-F5 and you should see two new tabs at the top of all AFDs. MBisanz ^talk 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, is that fast! The only thing I miss is a full-length preview of my often-verbose deletion summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I've copied this from the Fritzpoll (talk)page, coz he pointed me in your direction. This was my question on his page:

"I've recently been trying to bring the Cal Schenkel page up to wiki project biog standards, by adding a small gallery of the images he created. But a fair use rationale bot has removed two of the images. I dont know much about images, but I've gone to the image page and indicated why I think the image is being used fairly on the artist's own page. I think it's ok if the image is being used on the page of the graphic artist himself, and its low res. and the work of the artist cant be illustrated in other ways? But I see you've just removed my image of Trout Mask Replica, so I guess I must be doing something wrong. Cal Schenkel is an album sleeve artist and is the artist who created the image for Trout Mask Replica and it's low res?Pamela Gardiner (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)"

and this was his answer:

Hi there! Right, the only reason for my reversion was because it had been commented out by FairUseBot, and I percieved that to potentially be undoing a legitimate operation. My image policy knowledge is hazy at best. I will therefore point you in the direction of either User:Giggy or in the direction of administrator User:MBisanz who should be able to address your questions adequately. Sorry I can't be of more help, but perhaps they can be! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So can you help. Now I've added the artist's name to the image page, can I put the image back on his page>Pamela Gardiner (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I fixed the image and put it back in the article. Should be good to go. MBisanz ^talk 18:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanxs for that! Clever! Pamela Gardiner (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Editor review

Well, you've said you have been actively editing for a year, so I assumed... Hmm, it's not too difficult to write a FA, though in recent times it's become more difficult since we have got good reviewers in place. An FA is like any other college project. Sadly in recent times, I've not been active on that department after getting about 16 featured.

Getting a FA helps quite a bit. Once you know how to search for references, and what to look for, its pretty easy to swing AFD debates. It's also a great way to collaborate, understand the issues facing wikipedia. In addition, if you know how an article is written, so it's easy to look figure out what's POV, so when it comes to protection, you can accordingly think of the protection that needs to be applied. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice, I will endeavor to do better. MBisanz ^talk 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try your hand at article rescue. It involves several relevant skills. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Review one of my admin actions....

Not to overturn it, since it seems to have been accepted by a lot of people, but yesterday I blocked Realtorlindsay (talk · contribs) for spamming her contact details of her company all over the place. It's been suggested that I was a little harsh in doing so before a number of warnings had taken place. Can you give me an objective assessment? Criticism is the only way I'll learn! :-P Fritzpoll (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if I am doing the math right, she made a bunch of edits, got warned, made one more edit, then blocked. Would I have made the block; probably. Was it a valid block; sure. But let's step back here for a second. Let's say she had the edit screen window open when she was being warned. Now she doesn't see the orange bar until after she the saves the edit. That means she never sees the warning until after she made the edit she got blocked for. Is there any way we can know if that happened or if she saw the warning and kept going; nope. But, sometimes the benefit of multiple warnings is that at least there is an time-pattern where we know people will see the orange bar. Still a good block, if only because of the promotional username and COI aspect though. MBisanz ^talk 13:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A good summary - I'll watch out in the future. Probably would have been a fair username/COI block, but strictly speaking I blocked for spam. Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects

You might want to give several of the editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk page a nudge. They are trying to create a cross-namespace redirect. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done and thanks. MBisanz ^talk 13:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ouch! I wasn't expecting that opinion. Did you look at Talk page#References? Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I skimmed the article, but as it seems clear everyone else wants the article deleted, my main concern is it ending up as a redirect to some page, which it shouldn't be. I think most of the content could be go into Wiki as it is well sourced. MBisanz ^talk 17:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding article One Year MBA in India

Hi,

I believe that you deleted this article One Year MBA in India as majority were of the opinion about the deletion of the page. However, all the delete votes were cast when the article was listed like a directory. I made lots of changes since then and was wanting to add more information to it.

Could you reconsider adding the article back and allow me some more time to put information? You can put a vote again later!

Thanks for your consideration.

WikiOn ( t | c ) 15:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Falling Kingdom

Yo Matthew, is there any chance you can salt the falling kingdom (and its capitalizations, if necessary)? The article has been deleted and recreated several times at different titles, and the author doesn't really get it. The question of the deletion debate was less keep/delete than sources/salt. Thanks in advance, the skomorokh 21:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Muchas gracias, the skomorokh22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, can you get The falling Kingdom too? Cheers, the skomorokh 22:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Also  Done MBisanz ^talk 22:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

re: WP:WELLKNOWN

My edit summary was probably not as clear as it could have been. Unfortunately, that's part of the problem with an edit summary - I can't drone on and on expounding my full thoughts. What fun is Wikipedia if we can't bore each other to tears?

What I was trying to get at in that comment is that public figures by definition have a lowered expectation of privacy. Speedy-deletions citing BLP already have to meet a high bar - that bar is even higher for well-known figures who have actively submitted themselves to public scrutiny.

We still should not be publishing John McCain's SSN but personal opinions and political positions would certainly be fair game. For major politicians, even the most derogatory of redirects generally gets an RfD discussion to determine whether the pejorative is sufficiently notable that it should be kept.

I happen to think that redirect should be deleted. I just don't think that it can be speedy-deleted. Thanks for your comment. Rossami (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, I understand, thanks for the clarification. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyme

Hey MBisanz, would you be able to remove a comment Everyme made with an IP on my talk page that I do not want in the history? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked him for the comment, I'd prefer not to become involved in handling the comment, try User:Tiptoety. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet cats

Hi MB, can you explain what I should be doing in sock reports so you don't have to clean up after me? I don't speak AWB -- but I'm all about making others' lives easier. Let me know what I should be doing. Thanks! StarM 04:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, when you create a category, if you drop {{Sockpuppet category|PuppetMasterUserName}} on the page, it categorizes it and does other stuff like removing the category from google, etc. Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you've been adding this template, but you put "a user" in place of the actual user name. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my main purpose has been to categorize the cats en-masse. I will probably edit the template today or tomorrow so that an entry of "a user" causes it to hide the username or something. MBisanz ^talk 12:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks MB! StarM 12:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest Catholic bishops

Mbisanz, you closed this discussion as no consensus. This is correct according to votecount, and correct if you take the cited policies at face value. However, this is supposed to be a discussion, and no one has indicated how the article and the cited policies match. I replied to DGG's keep, but got no further answer. I did not reply to RFD, since he just stated "per DGG". I replied to Star Garnet, but he again gave no indication how the cited guidelines were relevant. I didnot have the chance to reply to Bearian (very late comment), but he just reiterates that it meets NN (still no indication how), and adds WP:OUTCOMES. The only thing about lists in that page is "Lists and categories have different uses, and lists nominated for overlapping categories are often kept." This list was not nominated for overlapping a category at all, so this is utterly irrelevant.

Since no one who wanted to keep has indicated in any way how this list meets WP:NN, and that was the basis for their keep arguments, I would consider these arguments empty, and would urge you to reopen the debate or close it as delete. Fram (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I re-reviewed it and the only close options I can see are Keep or No Consensus, even taking the substance of the comments into consideration, since people can disagree over concepts such as notability. Granted, the AFD does not prevent other options like redirection, renaming, or redefining the scope of the page, so that might be an alternative. MBisanz ^talk 13:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While I don't agree, I don't feel an urgent need to take it DRV, so I'll move on now. Thanks for replying and re-reviewing! Fram (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You deleted

You deleted a page with no authority. That is unjustified. I knew this person personally and half of the respondents wanted it to stay.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeneCosta, also, please do not recreated deleted material without consensus. MBisanz ^talk 09:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SBS Transit Service 579

No delete comments were made after other articles were added. The consensus is only for the original article. --NE2 18:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All of the deletes except ÆÅM and Milbourne reference the entire set of articles, so I believe that it is a valid close for all of them. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the others weren't even listed until after they voted, it's likely that they simply assumed they were all like 579. Some of them were slightly better and did not match the nominator's description. --NE2 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I've relisted it, but I don't foresee consensus changing. MBisanz ^talk 20:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I think it's pretty likely that they will all be deleted but I'd like to make sure that consensus is to delete all the articles, and not just 579. --NE2 20:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Restriction requested

The defecation article has been repeatedly vandalized. Can you restrict it to established users? Thanks a lot. --Jonathan108 (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done for 2 weeks. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

False accusation

You have just made a false accusation on my talk page. Kindly withdraw it, together with your unwarranted threat; and post an apology, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Diffs supporting warning [25], [26]. MBisanz ^talk 15:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You cite two diffs, both made today, in support of an accusation that I have been edit warring "for weeks"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

Check your talk page. MBisanz ^talk 15:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done, and note that you have slightly modifed, but not withdrawn, your false accusation. Please do so now. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the warning stands, revert warring on a guideline is disruptive and continued actions will result in a block being applied to protect the encyclopedia. MBisanz ^talk 15:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What arrant nonsense. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to apologize to Andy Mabbett for falsely accusing that user of edit-warring and threatening to block them. We all make mistakes from time to time in our zeal to improve and protect the project, and you've made one here. Please be big enough to admit it and do the right thing by apologizing. --UC_Bill (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

An editor who walks into a dispute and starts revert warring without having been involved in a discussion is disrupting that page and will be blocked if they continue, simple as that. Given Pigsonthewing's 10+ prior blocks for edit warring, he clearly understands what he is doing and what the community expects. MBisanz ^talk 18:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I do; and there was nothing wrong with my edits, unlike your unwarranted accusation and threat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what Andy Mabbett has done in the past. You can't block people for past behavior that is unrelated to current behavior, and for which they have (presumably) already been blocked. You're being pretty arrogant here, MBisanz, and you need to apologize and back away from the situation before you embarrass yourself even further. You admins need to understand that your primary function is to do maintenance work related to articles, not police the editors. I'm starting to think that none of you should even have the rights to block people, and that should be a completely different role, since allowing you to block people seems to be the source of all the problems. We'd be better off with unfettered vandals than arrogant admins. --UC_Bill (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okey, I opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review to get more input. MBisanz ^talk 16:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Collapse boxes

Hey Matt. I've been admiring the new 3RRBot page, and wonder how best to annotate the cases after some action is taken. The trick with the collapse boxes is worth considering, but:

• It's not ideal if the archives ever need to be searched on your browser screen. (Ctl-F or Cmd-F (Mac) won't find text in boxes that are collapsed).
• The boxing-up needs to be done manually, and it's an additional step for the closer to take
• Cases may be archived by the bot in a state where some action might still be needed. So 'collapsedness' and 'archivedness' will not coincide.
• The individual cases are small, so leaving them all uncollapsed doesn't take up too much space

How about some kind of 'Done' or 'In progress' marks? So there could be three states, Open (no action yet), In Progress, and Done? Then the eye could scan down, see which of three marks had been applied, and get as much benefit as they would from the collapse boxes. 'Open' could be the lack of any mark. Just some ideas.. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That would work, my thought was more the scrolling aspect of having to scroll through 2 days worth of reports with Resolved and Unresolved tags until the bot archives it. I might just wait until Nixeagle figure out a better archiving system and leave things spread out without the collapses. It really should be like AIV with auto-archiving after action is taken. MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You know AIV has no archiving, right, only auto-removal. I assume your desire is for 'AIV with auto-removal and true archiving'. EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice :) MBisanz ^talk 07:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

When a checkuser is listed, what does that mean?

As per yur comment in the anon checkuser discussion (here), when it is listed, where does it go, and what happens once it gets there? I guess I just demonstrated a total lack of depth on this topic... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It shows up at WP:RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. Light breaks over wooden head. Thanks, Rlevse, 'o-one-who's-handle-i-constantly-misspell'.  :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Lex Wotton

Just a quick note that I tweaked your close and the resulting article link. Yes, I !voted in it -- but I think I was neutral in that you didn't mean to re-direct to a red link ;) StarM 03:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I fail! You fix! MBisanz ^talk 04:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Only because I too wish that script had a "did you really mean to exclude that stray punctuation?" flag as well. Have a good night! StarM 04:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)F

Bonnie George Campbell

I would have preferred that this Afd lasted longer to get more input from editors. Two seems a little low to make a decision on, especially since their arguments were all about the uncontested notability of the whole collection of Child Ballads and not this specific one. Not sure what else to say except my experience in Afds has been a net-negative, as editors fail to follow guidelines or policy in their arguments or often argue for notability that's not part of the specific Afd topic. Your suggestions appreciated, I'm a little disheartened. --Kickstart70TC 04:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Thanks for all the good work you do at AfD. I wonder if you could take another look at The Gift of Time: The Case for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons Now, as the closure doesn't seem to be complete. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages

Hi
Just FYI, I mentioned a user talk page you protected at WP:AN#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages since it's one of a great number of indef semi protected user talk pages. I'm explicitly not complaining or reporting, it just happened to be one that I used as an example, since it's in principle against WP:SEMI.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't see my name, probably did it, feel free to overturn/modify however if needed for policy. MBisanz ^talk 12:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You protected Alison's, which is definitely covered by policy as a target of persistent vandalism (and a short experiment to try otherwise was quickly abandoned). Sorry for the noise, and cheers, Amalthea^Talk 14:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginationland: The Movie

You said the "result was redirect", but you also inexplicably deleted the edit history. Is there a reason you deleted reliably sourced content, thus preventing even a merge, as was suggested by some of the commenters in the discussion? DHowell (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There were a number of people citing "Delete and Redirect" and "Delete and set a redirect" which means I click the extra button when closing that deletes the article before setting the redirect. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But none of the "delete" arguments were based on policy, and I cited reliable sources in both the AfD and in edits to the article made after all of the "delete" arguments. This really ought to have been one of those cases where a single policy-based "keep" argument should have at least warranted a relisting or no consensus close, not a "delete and redirect" based apparently on nothing more than a headcount. DHowell (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, if I was going on vote-count it would have been a straight delete, I interpreted the votes to point at redirection as the optimal outcome. MBisanz ^talk 12:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That you are talking about "votes" at all means you are missing my point, which is that none of the arguments to delete were policy-based. Even if redirection were the optimal outcome (which I still claim it isn't after I managed to find sources and edit the article) that doesn't justify deleting the edit history behind the redirect. DHowell (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll restore the history for a day or two if you'd like to rescue the references, but I do believe the history needs to be deleted per consensus eventually. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you restore the history then? The apparent consensus at Talk:Imaginationland Episode I#Imaginationland: The Movie is to merge the movie/DVD information into that article, and I would like to do that. DHowell (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 03:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Dear MBisanz, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweetie Pie as delete; however, there was not that much participation in the discussion and I believe the merge argument and even delete votes allow for the possibility of a merge and redirect and recent discussions concerning characters from the same franchise with similar notability and sourcing closed as keep (see for example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dizzy_Devil, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold the Pit Bull, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifi Le Fume, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Babs_and_Buster_Bunny). Thus, I would be willing to create a list of characters as suggested in that discussion and am therefore requesting the article be undeleted so that I can merge any cited material after which I will immediately redirect the article or even if you would be willing to undelete the edit history, create the redirect, and then protect it, that would be fine too. From here on out, I am only willing to make such lists that I am able to significantly improve and build as I did with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_The_Nightmare_Before_Christmas&diff=251606962&oldid=251096230 so my goal would be to do what I am doing with the Nightmare Before Christmas character list with the planned Tiny Toon list as well. As with the Nightmare Before Christmas character list, I hope to add out of universe sections and only include information and list characters for which I can find references in secondary sources. I have avoided commenting in the actual AfDs, because I would much rather focus my time on article building (plus it was my birthday weekend and all…) Thank you for your time and help! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yobot

Hi. Can you check Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 3 once more? I did the test edits. It's been more than a month I asked for approval. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I enabled emailuser

As you requested. forestPIG^(grunt) 20:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bylaws process (ending December 1)

Per discussion at the November 16 New York City meetup, bylaws will be decided on-wiki with a deadline of 2 weeks to complete the process. Please read the proposed bylaws, and comment on them before the process ends on December 1. Thanks for participating!--Pharos (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Talk:Characters of Terabithia

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Characters of Terabithia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Characters of Terabithia is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Characters of Terabithia, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of subpage

Hello! There's a page in my userspace, User:Everyking/The March 3 2008 shooting of Memphis (Tennessee), that I'd like you to delete for me. After seeing that it had been deleted and thinking that it might be salvagable, I asked another admin to restore it in my userspace some months ago. However, I now see that it has copyright problems, so it should be deleted. Everyking (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 09:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom candidate data

Hello Mr. Bisanz, you seem to have done a lot of leadup work for the current AC elections so I am bringing this here first.

Can you have a look at this experimental page? I've somewhat extended Interiot/Wannabekate's analysis to include: combined space/talkspace edit counts (these give a different picture of the user contributions to the space); reporting and sorting of "recent" edits to determine what the long-term editor has been interested in lately; and summary/detail by "page family", which is of interest especially in the WP-space - for instance to collect all the user edits to ANI, AFD or RFA pages.

My immediate question is whether this output could be of interest for the current ArbCom elections, since it gives a somewhat deeper look into the candidate's activity than the Interiot tool does. If it looks interesting, I can run it for all the candidates. In the longer term, I wonder if it could be of use at RFA.

I've run the analysis for myself, you, and two AC candidates selected by int(rand()*25)+1. I'm relatively sure the data is good - but could you have a look at your own listing for the WP:RFA family? You've overflowed my detail-page table, which suggests that you have posted at more than 350 RFA/xx pages - is that reasonably true, or do I have to go looking through my precious code?

Thanks for any comments you (or anyone else reading) might have! Franamax (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I probably did very very bad things to your script. I just finished categorizing ALL RFAs, which means I have edited over 1600 RFAs, totally obliterating any useful statistics. I thought such data as your test-page shows might be useful for arbcom elections, but it seems people are much more interested in the question answers than actual facts, etc. In any event, I'm not sure it is worth your time to run those numbers for all candidates. Maybe for the candidates you support most, to show others the depth and breadth of their skills. You also might look at what Carc did in prior years, providing detailed commentary to his votes on a separate commentary page. MBisanz ^talk 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that it is less than 2000 RFA's, since that is my new memsize :) Each list just takes a minute or two to run, so it's do-able while watching a single hockey game, go Canucks! You may be right that most voters aren't interested in looking at editing history. That's unfortunate, since I'm not so much interested in supporting a candidate as I am in providing objective information for everyone to evaluate when making their own decisions. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's unbelievably thorough! I can see how Franamax's uContribs program would be useful in RfAs, for instance to see all the AfDs someone had left comments in. For an Arbcom election, the ideal data point would be a 'Wikipedia article' on the candidate. I.e. a neutral summary, written from an outside point of view, of the stuff the person had worked on and kinds of things said about them by others, on-wiki. But that would be too hard to create, I think. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD

You might want to reply to this as it seems they want to hear from you. I have tried to explain the process but your words might be better. BigDunc^Talk 15:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, I explained further there. MBisanz ^talk 15:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Feilding Intermediate

I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feilding Intermediate as being a redirect to List of schools in New Zealand. I fail to understand why. The majority of comments were to "Merge and redirect", but those that suggested an appropriate target were to redirect it to the locality, Feilding, New Zealand, and one editor reorganised that article to include an appropriate section. No one suggested merging it to the list of schools, which does not mention this school since it is a collection of lists by region. Please consider changing the outcome to be redirect to Feilding, New Zealand#Primary and intermediate schools.-gadfium 18:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh yes, I confused the section heading in the last comment, all fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. MBisanz ^talk 18:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

could you find a neutral election aide

Hi, I have added my name into the arbcom hat. My problem is that I have a fairly large and important consulting job on at the moment, I would like to only answer two questions per day, and answer those two well. I hope this will ensure that the questions are meaty. However the problem will arise that if more than two questions are posted on the same day, I will both annoy the person whose question I skip, and people may read into the selection process. Could you find someone who I havent interacted with often in the past to be an aide! All I request is that each day, they collapse all but two additional questions at whatever time of the day suits them. If there are no additional questions on a day, they can re-open old ones. Thank you, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayvbd! I would be more than happy to do that for you. Just let me know when you are ready for me to start. Tiptoety ^talk 21:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll not be looking at them for the next 8 hours, but feel free to make the selection whenever you feel there are two good meaty questions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider AfD (Perry the Platypus)

I ask you to reconsider your closure of the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Perry_the_Platypus debate.

My last comment in the section: "In my opinion, nothing in the Keep arguments have addressed the notability of the characters that is needed to have a Wikipedia article. These articles need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since I started the merge discussion in July on the Phineas and Ferb article and tagged all of the character articles, only Candace Flynn added a reliable secondary source to prove Ashley Tisdale voices the character. This either shows that no one is willing to find the sources to provide notability or there are no sources to provide notability."

You closed the debate as "Keep", even though at the worst it should have been "No consensus" based on the arguments, but in my opinion should have been closed as "Delete" due to lack of reliable sources to prove notability. Aspects (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as people did change their comments from delete to keep and given that all the comments subsequent to relisting were keep, and that even by going a straight vote-count it is 4 Keep, 2 Merge, and 2 Delete, I think Keeps have the day here. You are correct that it could also be "no consensus", but seeing as both mean the same thing and I think it is tilted more towards "Keep", that was my close. MBisanz ^talk 15:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion is not a vote counting system. The closing admin/editor needs to weigh the arguments presented by both sides. Since the "Keep" side only asserts inherited notability and no reliable sources, they offer no real argument that the characters are notable enough to have their own articles. Nothing was changed to the articles subsequent to the relisting that would signify that the "Delete" opinions were no longer worthy of their arguments. Aspects (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been over four days and you have not responded to my post, so I am taking this discuss to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Aspects (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okey. MBisanz ^talk 09:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello! Is there anything that can be merged from Nathaniel (Bartimaeus trilogy) to Characters_of_the_Bartimaeus_Trilogy#Nathaniel.2FJohn_Mandrake? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• • This character is the main character of a popular trilogy and now has no coverage on wikipedia at all. The other main character was merged (Kitty Jones). Thank you for your time.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh

That was kind. And fast. --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your message on my talkpage

Is as follows:

"ForesticPig, if you do not identify your primary administrative account to a checkuser, arbitrator, or ex-arbitrator by 24:00 UTC (approx 4 hours from now), I will block you for impersonation of an administrator, disruption, and sockpuppetry pending identification. MBisanz talk 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)"

This follows extensive Nov 17 discussion via email and on AN/I. It is unduly short (I very often log out for more than 4 hours), relies on a time zone that I do not recognise and goes against what you agreed to in an email:

FP: "Whilst I have taken steps towards not identifying myself via chekuser, and would not like to communicate further information with arbcom, I am connected off-site with another administrator who I will allow to verify the fact without disclosing any exact idenity. I can ask whether the administrator is comfortable in doing this if you like.

On the other hand, if arbcom are uncomfortable with my disclosure, I can remove it from my user page."

MB: "Sure, it you can have this intermediary admin email me or just post a vague talk page note if they prefer, that would be great."

This is not an agreement to disclose my identity to anyone. I was simply informing you that I am privately connected to another administrator who may or may not verify my claim without revealing my identity. This, as well as the disclosure itself is intended to be an assurance of good faith. I have repeatedly stated that I will remove the disclosure if requested, and now that you threaten to block my second account, I have decided to do as much of my own accord. forestPIG^(grunt) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, its simple, tell a checkuser or arb the name of your primary account and the debate it over, don't and you will be blocked for disruption, no more games, we've been waiting days for this other party to come forward. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You agreed to my previous method, and time does not cancel out that agreement. I have also fully eliminated the offending text, something that you could have requested right from the start - had you read my repeated assurances.

And as my comment also confirms, our agreement did not involve full disclosure to any party not already endowed with the knowledge. forestPIG^(grunt) 20:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple, you have been impersonating an admin, using proxies, and disrupting a sensitive topic area. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt if you were an admin. Unless you validate to some trusted source that you are not a disruptive impersonator, you will be blocked. MBisanz ^talk 20:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sade has appeared on AN/I, and verified my claim. I will not re-insert the claim if you are uncomfortable with it. forestPIG^(grunt) 21:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

EIW

Thanks for checking. No, my book doesn't mention any shortcuts using EIW:, in fact, the only shortcut in the book that involves the editor's index is to the index as whole (WP:EIW).

The EIW prefix has been discussed a number of times, without any real opposition, but no one (myself included, obviously) has summoned up the energy to actually fully implement this; presumably that can be taken as there not being any huge benefit in having such a prefix. So I don't have any objections to having the EIW: shortcuts removed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Voter guide

With respect to your voter guide, I assume that the plan is to remove the link from WP:ACE once the elections begin and you announce who you're voting for, correct? Ral315 (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did not add it [27], but I have gone and removed it [28]. MBisanz ^talk 12:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

rfc page

Eh, I would vaguely object to deleting it - it's interesting, and I don't think it really reflects badly on me. I certainly have no particular interest in seeing it deleted. john k (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it stays then. MBisanz ^talk 18:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mercia

Sorry to bother you, but you deleted Mercia Movement as per the discussion, but left Sovereign Mercia in place although the two deletion discussions were combined. Wessex probably was as well. --Snowded TALK 04:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for noticing, all done. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you block my bot account? --Japboom (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to register it with the Bot Approvals Group per Bot Policy. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I register another bot? --Japboom (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If you file a WP:BRFA for JapBot, I will unblock it. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How to register a bot? --Japboom (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at WP:BRFA to create a new request. MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RE : Undelete request

Done, though I think it needs to be formatted to fit today's standards. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 06:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks MBisanz ^talk 12:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot

The bot is not being used as a 'communication account'. Have you seen something that makes you think it is?

The bot is not un-disabling itself. The human restarts the bot, just as all bot owners do. I do provide a facility that allows editors to write one word (stop) on the bot talk page and then they are supposed to give a reason on the owner talke page. That is a voluntary facility that I think is generally a good thing, although it has been prone to abuse. In order to restart the bot, the procedure requires me to log in as the bot and remove the word. That is all. If somebody thinks it is terrible for a bot owner to edit the bot talk page as the bot account, then we could have discussed this. I certainly don't think it is a big deal and would never have dreamed that anyone would block over it. It is clear that some users have been confused, particularly if they no longer assume good faith in me. I am happy to provide an explanation of the process on the bot talk page, or to withdraw the facility.

I do a lot of work with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. I hope that clears it up. Lightmouse (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see [29](addressing another user), [30](requesting unblock), [31](undisabling itself). These are all edits that must be made using your primary Lightmouse account, they may not be made with Lightbot without approval via WP:BRFA. Do you acknowledge and agree to abide by the bot policy in this regard? MBisanz ^talk 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• The first is an error that occured when Pmanderson was repeatedly stopping the bot without giving a reason on the Lightmouse talk page. I had to:
  • log out as Lightmouse
  • log in as Lightbot
  • restart the bot
  • log out as Lightbot
  • log in as Lightmouse

Each time I got through that five step process, he stopped it again. In the course of 30 minutes, he stopped it four times. This was exasperating and I asked him to give his reason. I was in the wrong part of the process. You are right that I should have noticed, it was an oversight. I do not use the account deliberately as a means of communication.

• The second is a legitimate use of the account. I logged into the account to find it blocked and requested an unblock. I don't see anything wrong with a blocked account requesting an unblock on its own talk page. It was not possible for Lightmouse to request the unblock since Lightmouse was also blocked through an auto-IP block.
• The third is an inherent part of the procedure. The bot doesn't unblock itself. The human has to log in as the bot, then edit the page. I don't see anything wrong with a bot account being used to edit the talk page for the bot, I would be surprised if it were forbidden for all bot owners. The only issue is that people have mistakenly assumed that it auto-unblocks. I can add some text explaining that, or withdraw the facility that seems to be the source of the confusion.

There has never been any attempt on my part to use the account for 'communication' or auto-un-disabling. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot policy explicitly states

In particular, bot operators should not use a bot account to respond to messages related to the bot.

Even if it takes a five step process, you should not use the Lightbot account to edit the talk page. If it was blocked, you should request disabling of the autoblock on you Lightmouse account then request unblock on the Lightbot talk page using the Lightmouse account. You were using the bot to respond to the block message which is not permitted. MBisanz ^talk 20:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems reasonable to me that bot accounts should not be used for extensive debate on talk pages. That is why I have never knowingly used it for discussion. However, blocks and unblock requests seems to me to be quite different. I can't imagine that the rule was intended to apply to them. I can't see any harm in a blocked bot account requesting its own unblock, particularly when the owner account is also blocked. In fact it makes a lot of sense to me because one account should not be dependent on the block status of another. Nevertheless, I will comply with your suggestion until I can get clarity on the scope of this rule. Where can the scope of this rule be discussed? Lightmouse (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WT:BOT would be the appropriate forum to propose a change or ask for further interpretation of Bot Policy. MBisanz ^talk 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will have a look there with a view to clarifying/changing the policy. In the meantime, I repeat my assurance that I intended no harm and made no intentional use of the bot account for communication. As I said, I will defer to your suggestion. Please will you unblock the account now? Lightmouse (talk)

Thank you for unblocking it. Lightmouse (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions

I have left some questions for you regarding your blocking philosophy at Wikipedia:Editor review/MBisanz 2. I am interested in knowing your answers. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done at [32] MBisanz ^talk 20:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Editor review/MBisanz 2. I will not be participating in FAC anymore so neither Dweller nor you will have no need to take sides and block another editor to assure an FAC outcome. I am surprise you defend the situation, since the editor requesting the block admitted my comment was a joke. But such are your standards. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bohemian Forest's music

Hello. I came across the article Bohemian Forest's music today, and it has a very old AfD template on it. It looks like you're the one who closed the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music in the Bohemian Forest that it's associated with, so I wanted to ask you what else needs done other than the removal of the AfD template? I did that much, but I'm not sure what else needs done. Since it was closed as a merge, does a merge template need to be added too? Raven1977 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a redirect that borked the close, I've fixed the merge template on that talk page, good catch. Best. MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You were right

WP:WQA#Seicer. seicer | talk | contribs 13:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for neutral judgment

Hi Matt. I wonder of you could take a look at Natural Stress Relief or suggest an editor who could, to see if the article is notable enough for Wikipedia. Because I have been involved in removing a link and information NSR added to the TM page as a spam link, and inappropriate material for the TM article, I don't feel I can be seen as a neutral editor. I'm not attached in any way, do need an outside opinion, and will be satisfied with whatever the judgement is. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

I'll try to remember to get to it later tonight. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is very poorly written to begin with, more of a "how-to" style than an encyclopedia. I think it can be folded as a redirect into the main TM article for now, since the only sourcable content I can see is "NSR is a cheaper form of TM that involves repeating a silent mantra to release stress". Hope that helps. MBisanz ^talk 14:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My thought would be to leave it for now. If we includeed every form of meditation that was somehow like or not like TM , the article would be enormous. There has been discussion on TM as well to have more science since there have been at least 450 peer reviewed studies on the technique and that would extend the article. There has been a general agreement over time to remove or limit the article to just TM not other forms of meditation .... NSR is a single mantra form very different from TM in that regard, even other "advanced techniques" taught by the TM organization have been moved into thoir own artilces, so that it is clear what the article is about. At any rate its good to have your input.(olive (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)_

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned Frame

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned Frame as delete. I think we all overlooked Edward Frame which was originally a redirect to Ned Frame but has been revamped as a re-creation of the deleted article. I tagged it for speedy deletion several hours ago but no-one has got round to it yet. andy (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else fixed it. MBisanz ^talk 19:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Too_many_guidelines_and_policies.3F

Can you run your grep again but this time only search for policies ? Please reply at village pump Gnevin (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		MBisanz, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

ACE template

Yeah, I guess you can add my thing to the ACE template. I probably haven't thought through everything I've written that well, so the feedback would probably be good. How'd you find my page, by the way? I deliberately gave it a useless name. --JayHenry (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, people were like "Psst, there's a secret ArbCom guide. It's nuts." And you were like "Ooh, I have to find this!" As if it's a speakeasy or something :) --JayHenry (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically :P MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Visopsys

If you undelete Visopsys I'll improve it; I know a lot about these "hobby" OSes. As you can see I just fixed up the MikeOS article and can do more so tomorrow (or today), because it's way past midnight. I've left NoKindOfName a little message too. Thanks. H4xx0r-666 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:DRV, the consensus was quite clear. MBisanz ^talk 15:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Access to deleted material

Hi! Can you send me the text of my deleted version of the image description page, so that I can use that on Commons? Thanks, --Damiens.rf 15:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 15:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Y Where? --Damiens.rf 16:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Emailed via EmailUser. MBisanz ^talk 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Y Thanks! --Damiens.rf 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 02:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbstats done

I think User:SandyGeorgia/ArbStats is mostly done now, although I still need to ask Franamax if all Privatemusings numbers were talled from various accounts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

DYKsuggestion

Crap. I need to remember to do edits at the dev template from now on...I still haven't quite gotten used to the fact that the regular template is actually being used by people. Anyway, I reverted back to the old version and it looks like things are fixed now (I was only able to give T:TDYK a cursory glance, though). Thank you very much for notifying me. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

assistence on Coolhunting page

Hi MBisanz, I'm looking over the Coolhunting page, that just recently has been discussed. I'm afraid I was too late to enter the discussion. I was looking for ways to add my view on this: that is that coolhunting is a special form of trend watching (which doesn't seem to have a page also), although some articles seem rewritten from a trendwatching.com company kind of direction. The kind of coolhunting I do in my professional work is about finding consumer mentalities. Mentalities are also somehow differently discribed. None of these three concepts seem to be linked in trend, sociologically and in the end marketing, kind of way. How could I propose the linking (the framework) of these three concepts? Apreciate your thoughts on this one. --Hvadam (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens RfA

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Waywell

Oops - looks like I was commenting, just as you were closing. As per my comment - he seems to easily meet WP:BIO, with several articles such as [33]. Nfitz (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, even with your comment, it seems that consensus points at him being non-notable. I'm willing to relist it if you think that would make a great different, but I'm not sure it would change much. MBisanz ^talk 05:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Can you please relist. Also in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolai Boilesen all the keep discussion was based on the person meeting WP:BIO however your closing statement only addresses the person failing WP:ATHLETE which no one contested. Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

  My close takes into account all of the comments relating to notability made. That one is a clear close to delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for University of Arkansas Community College at Hope

On 30 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article University of Arkansas Community College at Hope, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Rich Mountain Community College

On 30 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rich Mountain Community College, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Blah

Sorry for two in a row, but that's what you get when you close AfDs I guess. =) In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blah (2nd nomination), I don't understand how you found no consensus. The arguments for keep were largely unsupported: "it's more than a dicdef" without further explanation. Did you find those arguments equally compelling as the deletion arguments? Powers ^T 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It basically came down to both sides disagreeing over the definition of WP:NOT. Both sides cited reasons, like it being a dicdef or it fitting into our category structure, and in light of the prior AFDs, it appears to be one of those articles that has a good number of people on both sides, but no clear consensus about it. MBisanz ^talk 19:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was a good close. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits

For what it is worth, even though I created the article and argued to keep, I thought your close accurately read consensus. Well done! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Great work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I've noticed your RFDs of innappropriate redirects, all of them were great noms, great work Patton123 15:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradford elementary school

Hi, would you be good enough to take a second look at the close, please? Now that the page has been made a DMB I think that the consensus became keep (as a DMB not the original article). Also, you redirected Bradford elementary school but left Bradford Elementary School which still carries the AfD tag. TerriersFan (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Locking the scorebaord

What's the rationale for this? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I move protected it since I don't want Grawp page moving it and breaking the bot and having to wait hours for Gurch to come home and reset it. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice it was move only. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyme

Erm, indefinite? FYI, it's a dyn IP from a large pool and blocking such IPs for prolonged periods is rarely useful. Look. I know I am evading my block, but it's not like I'm doing or trying to do any damage, quite to the contrary. I've done some minor formatting as well, and I see no reason not to boldly ignore all rules and still do some very minor uncontroversial stuff with proper edit summaries. I'm still a reader, you know, and I correct errors as I happen upon them just like in the old days before I ever registered an account. And I contact acquaintances whom I know in advance will more than gladly tolerate me. Blocking my IP just for that appears, well, a tad vengeful, don't you think? 78.34.131.112 (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

[34] I've never seen a more elegant, casual introduction of the term "ban" into a discussion, thanks for the chuckle. 78.34.155.135 (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

{{smallcaps}} TfD

Hi,

Sorry about that; the problem is that Twinkle doesn't note an error when it can't add a TfD tag to a fully-protected template. I've started a discussion on the talk page; any particular suggestion on how long to leave this before a re-nom? and fancy downgrading the template to semiprotection so that auto-tagging works next time? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that template does and would be scared to edit it. Try asking User:MZMcBride, he knows more about complex formatting and could probably add the TFD if needed. MBisanz ^talk 16:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! Wrong admin! Sorry for the confusion! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Dont need it anymore

It's ok i don't need it anymore. The Flag is only useful if i was still using the ACC Tool. But now since im revoked from using it there is no need for it anymore. Regards [ Rhodes416 ] [Talk] 21:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No but im sorry about my resent threats but i ain't the happiest wiki here. [ Rhodes416 ] [Talk] 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for National Park Community College

On 2 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article National Park Community College, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick q on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmelita Fox

I don't disagree on the deletion, it was obviously the right thing to do - but this is a likely search term and should at least be a redirect to the list of characters. Is there any problem for me creating that? --MASEM 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 12:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Mobile site

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

02:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. Mizu onna sango15

The Barnstar | My RFA | Design by L'Aquatique

		The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
		Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. —Mizu onna sango15Hello!

02:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional swords

Hi, MBisanz. Given the weight of arguments on both sides of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords, and the complete inappropriateness of the nomination comments, I'm surprised you closed it without a word of explanation. I'm curious how you arrived at your conclusion that there was consensus for removal. Powers ^T 14:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It was actually a rather easier close than the page size would indicate. Most of the Keep comments centered around the nominator and his incivility. Most of the Delete comments cited things like indiscriminate list and reliable sources, etc. At the end of the day, the discussion was on the article, not the nominator, and the arguments on the article indicated deletion. MBisanz ^talk 19:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I too was rather startled by your close, and I think it did not take account of the improvements to the article during the discussion. I suggest you look again at the deleted article. I'm sure you recognize that a list of things mostly having their own article cannot be called indiscriminate. I'd suggest reversing to a non-consensus. DGG (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And so to was I. With so many !votes for both sides, it should clearly have been a "No Consensus". Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I do believe there was a clearly discernible consensus, you are of course free to ask for review at WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Of the last 4 comments to the AFD, made on or after Nov 26th, three supported deletion. They were all made after any revision work had been completed. I'm just not seeing any other close, even with revisions. MBisanz ^talk 20:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• IMO a Delete or No Consensus would both have been perfectly acceptable closes of this AfD. MBisanz came down on the side of delete which is well within reasonable admin discretion given the opinions expressed in the AfD. The article wasn't much improved since nomination, at best any improvement was very moderate. The article wasn't indiscriminate, very few list articles truly are, but it was far too broad a subject matter to exercise reasonable discriminate control over. RMHED (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth, I actually didn't comment in this one, because I thought the nomination was so over the top I just didn't want to dignify it. Had I commented, I would have made the following argument... Strong speedy keep as it is a discriminate list that serves a purpose. Nomination is insulting and many deletes are unsubstantiated “votes” with WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:PERNOM style of non-arguments. In this particular case, given the incivility of the nomination, deletes “per nom” all the more disturbing. Whether you think the article should be deleted or not, we have to take a stand against blatant incivility. I would never want to be party to a deletion in which the nomination attacks fellow editors and readers and I would hope no one else would either. This discussion should be speedily closed for that reason alone. Moreover, this page is for a discussion and not a vote. Three of the deletes above only have “delete” followed by a signature. Three more only have “delete” followed by “per nom,“ and the nomination has already been discredited. Other cite mere essays about “cruft”, which are not policies or guidelines. Which only leaves us with repetitive calls that it is indiscriminate, and yet we know that is not true because it has a clear discriminate criteria for inclusion. Only swords. And only fictional swords at that. And per our other policies and guidelines, as is understood, only fictional swords verified in reliable sources. As far as saying it is unsalvageable, practically everything that is not just made up nonsense is improvable, including this article. Finally, an article such as this one serves as a table of contents to other articles. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete redirect to page you deleted

Hi, thanks for deleting the that I Love New York Men: Gentlemen School links to, could you delete I Love New York Men: Gentlemen School as well. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 12:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was fast, thanks! I found one more I Love New York: Charm School ← Charm School 3. I believe this is the last one. Thanks again! Plastikspork (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchboxes

How did you come to the conclusion to close this as no consensus? It seems to me there was consensus to keep this around (at least in some form which could be discussed later). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I missed that the IP was the one pushing redirect, I've changed the close, but would agree that it makes more sense under the current name Matchbox (drinking game). If I am reading it correctly, the content is preserved, just under a new name. MBisanz ^talk 13:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the AfD, don't know if you noticed that I moved the page, but it seemed to be the consensus. --Nate1481 15:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I figured it out, thanks. MBisanz ^talk 15:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just seen it above... --Nate1481 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

University of Virginia template

Hi--You recently removed links to the articles World Heritage Site and UNESCO from Template:University of Virginia, stating that they were "unrelated" to the University. UVA is the only university in the United States to be designated a World Heritage Site, as stated in the lede of the University of Virginia article, and so I feel keeping the link in the template is appropriate. I could go either way on the UNESCO link.

Could you provide a little more rationale for your removal of the links on Template_talk:University of Virginia? Thanks. -Tjarrett (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My thought was that they only linked to the general WHS and UNESCO articles, not specific articles on UVA. For two articles, that probably have very little content on UVA, to take up that much space on the template seemed a bit excessive, in light of how large the template is already. MBisanz ^talk 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This Is Me Smiling

I don't understand why the articles for This Is Me Smiling and This Is Me Smiling (album) were removed without any explanation as I came to understand that a band is notable when they have third party references and have released an album on a major label. Also, the album was rated as a class B article under the album project, so how could it fail the notability test? There were a few comments questioning this, but I felt the arguments for keeping the article outweighed them. I did a lot of work on this article myself and I would like to see it reinstated. Thanks. Bigevilalien (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is Me Smiling and all of the comments supported deletion, you never commented. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Happy Children of the Third World

This was co-nominated with Nasrul Eam. --Ragib (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 14:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Afd-mergeto

Hello! Please note that this tag is intended for transclusion within the actual article to be merged. The documentation added in July incorrectly stated that it was to be transcluded on the article's talk page (which applies only to Template:Afd-mergefrom). Thanks! —David Levy 16:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Notified the script's owner at User_talk:Mr.Z-man#AFD_script MBisanz ^talk 16:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! —David Levy 17:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Once a Ranger AFD

Hi. I'm a bit confused as to how this was closed as no consensus. The arguments in favor of keeping appear to be limited to "seems like a notable event but the article should talk about it more" and "there are plenty of other tv episode pages" and "every episode of Power Rangers is automatically notable." Otto4711 (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I went based on the stated beliefs of the keep comments that it was a notable (significant) event and that there were third party references. MBisanz ^talk 11:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino's Block has expired

The appointed time, has passed. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, block status shows clear. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi. I am coming out of semi-retirement. (won't be very active though, but will still edit often) Would you restore my rollback rights? (Just rollback, not account creators) Thanks for your help :) Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello MBisanz, I've done this for Maximillion Pegasus and for you. Hope you don't mind. Best wishes. Acalamari 01:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, anytime. MBisanz ^talk 21:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PD RFAR

Thanks - would mind taking a quick look at the request and notif-cations to see if the T's are dotted and I's crossed. Cheers --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You should put diffs of the notifications next to the list of involved users. Also to err on the side of caution, you probably ought to notify Jimbo, FT2, WJBscribe and David Gerard, since they are involved in the Peter Damian situation. MBisanz ^talk 21:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers - will do. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, nice work. Those arbcom templates are complex. MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Another occasion for clarification of the username policy

You, of all people, should know that any username ending in "-bot" is only allowed for authorized bots and that it is to be changed ASAP if not a bot, referred to BAG if it is and soft-blocked if it is and is editing outside its own userspace.

Or is there something going on here I don't know about? Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

DOH! I saw a red-link talk page on my watchlist and clicked without looking at the name. Yes, softblock. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the user has explained he's waiting for a usurpation to go through, so I have let him be. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Posey

Hello Mbisanz was wondering if you could expand on your reasoning in closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Posey discussion as delete. To me it looked at best Keep at worst no consensus. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 03:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

While there was disagreement on the BLP1E aspect, it appeared that the Keep arguments did not address the WP:NOT#NEWS aspect and that on a whole the weight was towards delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks for your quick response. I understand your rational but disagree on two levels. First, this incident falls out side “…Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism.”, in that this incited was covered by international press, as shown in the arguments to keep. Second the guide states that “…. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event.’’, which again was shown by the Google Scholar results showing that this case was used in scholarly studies. Any possibility for a reconsideration? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 04:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I went back and re-read the comments. I'm still seeing it as a delete, although the WikiNews option also could work. At this point, I'm going to go with WikiNews or WP:DRV as my final position. Best. MBisanz ^talk 05:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoning, however we choose to disagree. In that light, can you post a copy to my sub page. I’ll try working on it, to address all the issues and see if we can get it to stick next time around. Of course, I’ll ask for your opinion before reposting. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Red Link deletion

Hi MBisanz, sorry I didn't write a good deletion rationale on Red link redirect. Have just improved on it in my support vote. I'm not an expert on this! — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 10:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I used to think I could prod redirects and then someone reminded me otherwise. All good learning. MBisanz ^talk 14:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hemanshu

Hi there. As this Request for Comment has been going on for a while now, do you think now might be about the right time to wrap it up? I am not sure how long they are supposed to go on for, so I thought I'd ask you. Although it says that "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information", the general consensus at the RfC seems to be that a desysop is in order, although a further block or a ban are not currently desirable. Thus, do you feel we now have enough of a community consensus to take this to the Arbitration Committee and request a removal of User:Hemanshu's administrative priveleges? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This requires a detailed answer that I'll give later. MBisanz ^talk 14:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

He has not edited since Nov 7th, so the Arbcom committee, as it has in the past, would probably decline to act on a moot issue. If he became active again, doing the same things that led to the RFC, then maybe. I'm content to leave the RFC until someone adds a new one on another user and archives the oldest one. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gidday

I've seen you busy around image work, so I'd like to ask you a question. I've been waiting for Image:Coa cambodia.jpg to be renamed for a couple of months. Today, I tried to work out how to do it myself and came across this page. A few more clicks showed me that this Category:Media requiring renaming has an impressive backlog of some 700+ images. So, I was wondering if you would be willing to add my name to this list? Then perhaps I could gradually clean some of these up - rather than waiting for someone else to do it. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the odd formatting, I'm not sure how to bluelink cats and images, without recategorising your talk page! Paxse (talk)

You have to add a colon in front of the link (e.g. [[:Image:Yellowlegs - natures pics edit.jpg]]). It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you are a champion! Now that you've remind me, I've remembered I used to know that - far too many defunct brain cells.Paxse (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The bot that was going to handle that task is inactive, I've been trying to convince another person to take the task over, but right now that category is more of a "someday when we have this feature, we'll do these images". MBisanz ^talk 15:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Damn, that certainly explains the ever increasing backlog. Would it be possible to do some manually? Download the images, re-up under a better name, then tag the old image with I8? Or do we need to keep the image/edit history? Cheers, Paxse (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You would need to copy/paste the File History to the new image, and make sure to re-route all uses of the image, but yes, what you say is possible, just tedious and time consuming. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. Btw, it's fine with me to delete the home robotics taskforce redirect. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyme (posted first at User talk:Islander)

I'm taking it on myself to find out what exactly is going on with Everyme. I've worked with him quite well in the past year or so (mostly as Dorftrottel prior to a rename), and he and I seem to "get" each other. I'm not surprised by a block on his log, (neither is he I surmise), but I must admit, I'm extremely surprised that the block is indefinite. I'd like to act as a mediator betwix you, Islander, everyme, and whomever else wants to jump in, but I'd like to do it away from the drama boards that seem to merely stir up irreleverent (that's a combo of irrelevent and irreverent) shit. I'm kind of in the dark with the whole thing, I've been on break for the better part of the last two months, but I can commit to at least checking in and seeing if there is a reasonable way that E-me can go back about his business, dignity intact, as well as e-one else doing the same. From my early perusal into the situation, it seems like things got out of control from both sides. Any willingness to begin a discussion amongst long-time editors? My goal is to see Everyme unblocked. Keeper ǀ 76 03:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, my block of Everyme was a three week block for logging out to harass an editor with personal attacks via IP. Other admins then extended due to socking. Finally there was an AN discussion and the community said an indef block was in order. If you want to mentor him/unblock/whatever that is fine by me, I was just responding to the original AN post with blocking. MBisanz ^talk 03:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MBisanz. What IP was he using to "harass an editor"? I'm not asking because I don't believe you, simply because I'm trying to catch up to the situation. Keeper ǀ 76 04:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See [35] IP post and AN confirmation that it was Everyme [36]. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well that's just uncomfortable. I need to find out how your reasonable block (and block length, based on log/history) went all indef. I'll wait to hear from Islander. Appreciate your help Matt (by the way, what the hell are two fine young gentlemen like ourselves doing on Wikipedia on a Saturday night? Has life really been this unkind to us? ...:-) Keeper ǀ 76 04:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a date tonight, don't know about you. :) MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I stopped dating...er, eons ago shit, I'm supposed to remember my wedding anniversary date....crap. And by "date", I'm assuming you mean this? :-) Keeper ǀ 76 04:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIIS

Just wondering, why did you close as redirect, only 1 person voted for that. didn't seem a consensus for redirect + I doubt people will type in IIIS in Wikipedia anyway? Michellecrisp (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well there were only 3 comments in total, and on my decision scale of Keep, No Consensus, Merge, Redirect, and Delete, I felt it better to average the Merge and Delete into a Redirect that relist the AFD to have more people comment. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the response, not a big deal as I would have preferred redirect to keep in any case, but thought there was a case for more people to respond to get more of a consensus. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Air Gear Articles

What was the reason for the deletion of the Air Gear Kings and Roads list? If its possible to re-instate, please do so.

00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Darkmisry (talk)

Darkmisry

The reason is explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings and Roads (Air Gear). In short, the article appears to not have the level of notability as a result of coverage in reliable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Venus_Project

Would you mind elaborating on your decision? I'm not sure if you overlooked this, but most of the people in favor of a merge seemed to favor a merge to Jacque Fresco rather than Zeitgeist: Addendum. While in my nomination I did suggest Zeitgeist: Addendum, the argument for merging to Jacque Fresco was rather persuasive. Much of The Venus Project is already described there, and I'm not sure if moving that material to Zeitgeist: Addendum makes much sense. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:59, 8 Dec 2008 (UTC)

My basis was that you said ZA first so any Merge comments that didn't specific it, would be pointed towards your suggestion. Also, that it was about 50/50 for redirects to JF and ZA and it seemed like the best option. Granted, it is an editorial decision at this point, so anything can be done. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes again :-)

I understand you have been busy and may overlooked the above/below comment. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoning, however we choose to disagree. In that light, can you post a copy to my sub page. I’ll try working on it, to address all the issues and see if we can get it to stick next time around. Of course, I’ll ask for your opinion before reposting. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done at User:Shoessss/CP MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I let you alone, at least for a little while, now :-) Thanks again. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Chronological list of Famicom games, 1989-1994, and possible deletion of Chronological list of Famicom games, 1983-1988

Hello. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia, and the article Chronological list of Famicom games, 1989-1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronological_list_of_Famicom_games,_1989-1994&action=edit&redlink=1) was recently deleted because of its similarity to List of Famicom Games. The major difference between the lists, however, is that the deleted page contained the Japanese-text name of each game; this was considered a trivial loss in the discussion on its deletion, but I can assure you there was no better list available in one place that was so easy to access for an English user. Many of the individual pages for these games do not contain their Japanese-text name equivalent, and will leave people having to stumble through babel-fish or google translate to try and come up with a good guess.

I would also like to point out that the deleted page (and proposed deletion page) contain many facts in the notes column about games that only have redlinks. This is a lot of information to lose should the deleted page not be properly restored or merged with the surviving List of Famicom Games page.

If the page is to remain deleted, please merge the column of Japanese-text names into the article List of Famicom Games. Please also consider doing the same for the proposed deletion of Chronological List of Famicom Games, 1983-1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_list_of_Famicom_games). The loss of both lists would be a real tragedy.

Nesguy (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)nesguy

Hi, yea, I'm sorry but the articles will remain deleted. If you like, I could send you a copy of the pages and you could merge what data you think is appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate that very much, thank you. The source for those articles was a book not available in the United States, and as thus all the information is very hard to track down. Nesguy (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)nesguy

 Done Check your email. MBisanz ^talk 18:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Move protection relating to the IWF malarky

Not paranoid, just realistic! Thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ronnie radke article Deletion

hello im extremely outraged that you have delated this article by all means their have been no such thing! you must be literally out of your mind i cant belive this somehow happened.

I do refer to some comment earlyier saying he plays on doing nothing eles and hes stuck in jail and hes just a "former" artist thats 100% absolutely wrong in fact if you want a realiable Source another compliant

just simply head to www.escapethefate.net their offical homepage you'll see interviews from jail from ronnie radke himself with future plans of starting a whole new band with previous member of ETF omar

along with amny other intrseting facts abotu the current band and all its memebesr so regaurdless if hes in jail or not theirs still recsent stuff coming out interview was sometime in october

I mean literally their is tons of infomation to fill this article thats still very appliable i think its Pathetic you'd even consider of dealted this article

and plain to the fact demand that it be restored Immediately

haha honestly you muat be crazy in fact i think todays the day that he even gets out of jail! so really are you kidding me you deatle his article the day he gets out sad

anyways please fix this problemm

Lordchs (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)lordchs

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Radke, the Wikipedia community feels that the individual in question fails to satisfy its criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Therefore the article has been deleted. As it is a very clear cut consensus on the matter, I am declining to restore the article and direct you to deletion review. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciel (Tsukihime) (2nd nomination)

Hi there. You closed this discussion as a keep, but didn't close out the co-nominated article (I know, it's like the only problem w/ Z-Man's script). Anyway, normally I'd close it out for you, but both DGG and I found the co-nom less notable than the main article, and I wanted to be sure that you meant to keep both. Take care, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Same close as co-nom. MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Punkox

Simply drawing your attention to my comment on the case.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Matthew Gassen

I just want to know the reasons you found for taking the side of deletion, backed by guidelines, over the keep side, backed by policy. Hopefully, we can avoid more work at deletion review if you just answer me here. Tealwisp (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew W. Gassen the community consensus is crystal clear as a delete. Among other things, citing IAR's status as a policy above all other guidelines is a rather unconvincing argument for keeping an article. I'm sorry, but from the discussion it is clear that the lack of coverage in reliable sources makes the subject ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. Do feel free to take this to WP:DRV as I am quite certain the consensus close is correct. MBisanz ^talk 18:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, AfD is not a vote, correct? And the last time I checked, policy takes precedence over guidelines. I just want to know if this has all somehow changed, or if you have immunity for some reason. Tealwisp (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Also, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. When I close an AFD, I look at the strength of the arguments and the consensus of the community. It is not a vote and I did not base my close on a vote count. I based it on the arguments of sourcing and notability v. IAR and how that fits with the general beliefs of the community. And no, I am not immune from any of the rules on Wikipedia. MBisanz ^talk 21:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to know your rationale about taking guidelines over policy. Tealwisp (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you review opinions such as Wikipedia:Exceptions should leave the rule intact, and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, and WP:BURO, and Wikipedia:Use common sense, that pretty much sums up the communal approach to things. Policies and Guidelines are rules to follow. But saying an article should be kept, when the sourcing and notability fail, merely because of IAR, is an untenable position. I should add the other consensus of the AFD was that the guidelines on notability and sourcing did not prevent the betterment of Wikipedia, which is the situation IAR is designed at. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enjoy the Ride (song)

I had previously merged the contents of that article into Dive Deep, before the edit-warring broke out that forced it to AFD. I've restored that version of Dive Deep, but now I'm uncomfortable about the GFDL and the history. The options I can come up with are to ignore the problem (certainly the simplest), or to bring "Enjoy the Ride" back as a protected redirect. Your choice.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Protected redirect seems like the best option here. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good ... you've got the bit, not me. Thanks.—Kww(talk) 03:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Afd Closures

Hi MB. I don't think these two closures [37] and [38] reflected consensus or the strength of the arguments, especially when there is a no consensus option. I'm not attached enough to either subject to propose a DRV, but I encourage you to reconsider. Neither outcome is a good reflection of the discussions that took place. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I only closed one deletion and you linked to it twice, and that there was a discernible consensus at the deletion debate. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the second link. There was a clear consensus that there was no consensus to delete either article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Memory Alpha

I concur with ChildofMidnight on Memory Alpha - I came here just to ask you to reconsider and haven't looked at the other link. I had never heard of or seen that website but only commented at the AfD after finding sources at both Google books and Google scholar. Even without those it's pretty clear that the website is noteworthy on it's own and the AfD reflected this and is hard to see as a clear delete or keep. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So I took pause, and decided to go back and re-read all the comments at the AFD. And I'm still seeing it as Delete. The Delete comments focusing on the quality of the sourcing are more convincing than the Keep comments focusing on the profile of the site in the internet community. Regards. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you looking at it again but see it more as a no consensus. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Memory Alpha. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really need it...

Just curious how to get this to work. What's the "key"..Secret key? Only for admins? (Found the link on your userpage:poor man's checkuser) -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 16:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand needs to give you a personalized key to make it work. Cheers. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 17:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

One is missed

One is not blocked yet. Show-me-the-evidence (talk · contribs), the filer is likely a sock of Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) and admin, Ice Cold Beer who had been busy blocking socks last Saturday agreed with my opinion that show-me is Lucy.--Caspian blue 02:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of the sock farms.--Caspian blue 03:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Mop jobs

Thanks much for giving me something to use my mop on, but I really feel compelled to spend my time reviewing copyediting style books and training copyeditors, on top of my usual WP maintenance. When that's done, I'll get the mop wet :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No rush, took me months to get used to closing AFDs. And of course, there is no deadline . MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Surveillance and Incarceration

MBisanz, thank you for closing the AfD of that article. If you have a moment, could you also look at this AfD for an article that was created as a duplicate of that first article? I was unable to speedy the article at first because the first AfD was unresolved, but now I image it can be either speedied under G4, or just deleted through the AfD. Thank you, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I apologize for the length of comments you must have had to plod through when closing the first AfD....it should have been a pretty clear-cut discussion, on the verge of a SNOW, but a disruptive user was repeatedly socking so it made it hard to follow everything. Anyway, thank you for your work. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about deletion

You deleted a category talk page, Category talk:Port cities and towns by sea or ocean, citing "CSD G6, non-controversial housekeeping deletion". Since this was a talk page of a category which is in use, I want to ask you what the actual content of this page and page history was. __meco (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There was one edit to the page, an IP asking people to send him a private message on a MMORPG game about useful websites and giving his account name at the MMORPG. Failed my advert, purpose of talk page, and releasing private data tests. MBisanz ^talk 09:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Very good. __meco (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Template

I was curious about {{Miami-Dade County, Florida}} for the same reason, especially as that had a useful wikiproject banner rather than just graffiti. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it had nothing on the page, it had been a blank page since July 17, 2007. There was no wikiproject banner on it. MBisanz ^talk 15:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You had page blanked a nonsense post from an IP. I was going through and cleaning out such pages as they are rather useless to have laying around. MBisanz ^talk 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ah, ok, thanks, and sorry to trouble you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, anytime. :) MBisanz ^talk 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

My mistake was in still having his user page on my watchlist for some reason. He's one of the most arrogant characters I've run into here. He constantly gets blocked and learns nothing from it. However, I've taken his page off my watch list now, and I hope to never, ever have any contact with him again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Objection

There is clearly an editorial dispute as to whether the transcripts in question fall into the limited exceptions which policy does allow outside of article space. I am particularly disappointed that you should choose to leap straight to a final warning during an editorial dispute. when no admin has issued a previous warning. I shall not re-add the material, because I no longer trust you to behave ethically on this matter. DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald

Are you issuing warnings on behalf of, or at the request of, or under the control of Scott MacDonald? DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed first on my watchlist, where the page has been since it was created, and I am certainly not under the control of Scott MacDonald. Scott later mentioned it and I said I would not block anyone, but would investigate and act on my own accord, which I did. If I was acting on his behalf, I would have not warned, but acted otherwise. MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to make a clear warning on the talk page (I suggest in the thread where the matter is being discussed) about your likely actions before you start dishing out final warnings to editors with whom you are in disagreement about the interpretation of policy. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-lasting empires

Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-lasting empires only a minute after I submitted by "keep" rationale, and less than 4 days after it was nominated. I was wondering if you had actually considered my rationale, or felt the debate was eligible for early snowball deleting because of the lack of a keep argument after 3 1/2 days? Could you consider re-opening this and letting my keep argument get some consideration? DHowell (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll re-open it for the balance of the time, but I don't see it changing, even based on your comment. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. DHowell (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there were two more "keep" arguments which came after mine, no more "deletes" and no responses to the keep arguments from any of the original editors arguing for delete; how did you decide that there was still a consensus to delete? (I am also questioning two more closings separately below...) DHowell (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Of the three Keep comments, one cited It is a very useful list. as the entire rationale for Keeping the article. I weighted that comment very low in my final interpretation. DGG's comment states it is not OR, but qualifies that ordinarily the sources would be of higher quality. Your comment is very detailed and thorough, but at the end of the day, the weight of the Delete comments was stronger. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But how did you decide that the weight of the delete comments were stronger than mine and DGG's? DHowell (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your argument was based in part on the existence and retention of List of empires; It is not original research unless the same information in List of empires is also original research and while you in good faith put forward that position and others such as being not indiscriminate, the delete comments put forward the opposing viewpoint in good faith and in greater quantity. And it was not a vote count, but a recognition that there was more support for the deletion arguments and less support for the diametrically opposite keep arguments. MBisanz ^talk 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What you describe is the very essense of "no consensus". And policy says we don't delete articles when there is no consensus. I fail to see much of a difference between a "vote count" and "greater quantity" or "more support"—more support for a position does not equal consensus, or even "rough consensus", which is determined with respect to policies and guidelines. DHowell (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take this to DRV, but I do not see any close other than delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done so. DHowell (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Advice please

Hi Mbisanz, I've reverted this and warned the person who added it for vandalism, but now having slight doubts cause I'm not a scientist. Would you agree it (reposted several times since May this year) is all just silly penis innuendo? 99% sure but still a bit worried I've been chasing a useful editor away. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 21:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It reads like total nonsense to me. And a google search of Tayness basically confirms that. I'd say take it to WP:AN/EW if he does it again. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional governments AfD

Could you explain your rationale for how you decided a consensus to delete List of fictional governments here? DHowell (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the Keep comments argued the general points of Lists v. Categories and the value of red-links. The Delete arguments more directly addressed the content of the article and on a whole were weightier than the Keep arguments. MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Discounting the bare links to policy which don't explain how they apply to this article, and "it's cruft" arguments, we're left with the arguments that the list is too broad, a category is better, and lack of citation to reliable sources. All of these arguments were addressed by the keep arguments and by guidelines, respectively, WP:SALAT (overbroad lists are fixed by splitting, not deletion), WP:CLN (lists should not be deleted simply because a category exists or "is better"), and WP:BEFORE (which says that a good-faith effort to find sources should be attempted before an article is deleted). So how exactly do these arguments outweigh those arguments which directly refute them? DHowell (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry again, but the good faith arguments in favor of deletion, namely WP:NOT and the sourcing issues outweighed the good faith keep arguments. Also, the only delete comment with a discussion thread under it was the sourcing comment, so the delete comments were not directly refute. Please consider DRV if this is not satisfactory. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

DRV here. DHowell (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ghostesses in the Slot Machine

Could you explain why you thought there was a consensus to delete the edit history of Ghostesses in the Slot Machine, even after the nominator eventually agreed with me that a merge would be appropriate? DHowell (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a mistake in closing (clicking the wrong button on the close window), I've fixed it. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had incorrectly assumed this was a repeat of what happened with Imaginationland: The Movie. DHowell (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of Paul Robinett

Hi. This article underwent AfD in October which you had closed as delete (a decision I disagreed with). It wasn't relisted in DRV (another decision that didn't seem to go with consensus). As I found two more in depth secondary sources, one published since the last deletion [39], I have recreated it. --Oakshade (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please expand on a deletion reason

I just noticed this in my watchlist:

deleted "Template talk:Foreign exchange" (Deleted because "Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial housekeeping deletion. using TW". using TW)

Since Template:Foreign exchange exists, and I don't see a move in the history, I am a little puzzled. Do you know (or can you guess from the deleted content) what the underlying reason was: for a history merge perhaps? (Perhaps it was even a 'db' tag that I placed myself but no longer remember.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 02:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a blank page that resulted from a rename of the template and the subsequent removal of the wikiproject category it was in. So it had no useful information or history to preserve and was just a blank page laying around. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike Caplan

In this AfD, you have not yet deleted Mike Caplan. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FireGPG

Can you explain your rationale to merge FireGPG? I although I'm aware of silence and consensus, I'm worry that the decision was based only on the arguments of 3 users. Thanks, --Jmundo (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well there were five comments, the delete, the keep, and three merges. On my continuum of closings, which runs Keep, No Consensus, Merge, Redirect, Delete, I averaged the keep and delete to a merge since the Delete and two of the Merges argued lack of notability and you argued for the existence of notability. Also, the AFD opened Dec 7th, the last comment was Dec 8th, and I closed Dec 12th. Relisting for more consensus would have occurred if there was new information brought to light near the end of the AFD or if it appeared that commentors were confused about specific facts. MBisanz ^talk 10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Holy Family Catholic Church (Williston, Florida)

I am more than a little confused. There are hundreds of individual church articles located within Wikipedia, in addition to similar stubs for schools and related items found in rural areas. In this case, the article deleted is responsible for servicing the majority of Catholics in the entire county...but is not considered noteworthy? It is stated it does not meet guidelines under WP:RS, which I disagree with as numerous sourcing from the organizations own official website validate all material presented. I also would like to question whether the Inherent notability justification also applies, as if it does not then there is a clear conflict between the presence of similar articles throughout Wikipedia that have been present for years and the justification presented here. In addition, consensus did not occur after the relisting of the deletion request by those originally a part of the discussion unless I am misunderstanding the consensus. Aafm (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is a fickle thing. I've written 2 articles on churches from scratch personally. When I went to close this AFD, I mumbled to myself that the community was getting this decision wrong. Then I reminded myself that I was the closer, not a commentor at the AFD. Including the comments after the relisting, it seems several individuals disagree that the church is notable due to a lack of reliable sources. While primary sources can be used in some circumstances, third-party sources are generally required. Also, arguments such as other things exist or that there inherent notability, while good faith arguments, are generally discouraged with an encouragement to address specifically how the article in question meets the reliable sourcing guidelines to attain notability. MBisanz ^talk 10:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Trouble with mirror articles....

I see that the duplicate article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High School Musical: El desafio (Mexico) was deleted. But its twin still exists at High School Musical: El Desafio, Mexico. Do we need another AfD?? And if you can delete this mirror article based upon the results of the AfD, can I then move High School Musical: El Desafio, Argentina to High School Musical: El Desafio (as the film made more money in international distribution than simply in Argentina), and so simply overwrite the redirect currently at the preferred name? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I did all of that. Right now? MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a confusing mess. And you did real good. Thanks big time! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD question

Hey MBisanz, since you do a lot of AfD's, I was wondering how you would have looked at this particular one, given all the campaigning, SPAs and likely socks that came out. Thanks for the help, Grsz¹¹ 17:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have closed as Keep. Even though there were a lot of SPAs and IPs on the page, there were a couple of experienced wikipedians who participated, all of whom said to keep the article. MBisanz ^talk 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, those few are why I withdrew. Now as for the books, do they have enough notability to stand alone? Grsz¹¹ 18:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the books. I rarely use group AFDs for that reason. One notable article in a group basically will prevent the deletion of any truly non-notable articles and bias any future AFDs. In particular, combining a Bio and Book is problematic, since they may bring different inclusion criteria into play. MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glint (band)

Hi MBisanz. Might I ask for your rationale on this one? Unfortunately this AfD discussion was rife with chatter from an editor or editors with conflict of interest. But taking all of that out, I'm not sure if I see how the "delete" comments were enough to discount the "keep" comments written by me, by Michig, and by Esradekan? This looked like a "no consensus" to me, but admittedly I am biased here, given my opinion on the matter. :) Anyway, thanks in advance. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well once I down-weighted the 4comments from the same IP, and the comment from User:Glint (band) that left you, Michig, and Esradekan. Your comment was a strong comment in favor, but Michig and Esradekan's indicated they felt it barely met the inclusion standards. Combined with the otherwise strong deletion comments (not the nom though, which was weak), it tilted towards delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that your "tilted towards delete" would justify a "no consensus" result in the minds of some admins who close AfDs, but I don't think this one warrants a DRV. Thanks very much for the explanation. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally when I think of no consensus I think of situations where there is a near-perfect split over some process matter (eg. Delete per guideline WP:FICT, Keep WP:FICT not a guideline) or when both sides are equally adamant over their WP:AGF belief on a concept and are present in equal weight. Out of interest, I ran the numbers, of the

1,855 AFDs I have closed,

139 were no consensus,

1,172 were delete

228 were keep

154 were redirect

137 were merge

10 were speedy keep

13 were speedy delete

2 were speedy redirect

1 was interwiki redirect

Resulting in:

13 DRVs

3 In progress

7 Deletions endorsed

1 Userfied

1 Keep overturned

1 Keep endorsed

1 Deletion relisted

which works out to a a 99.7% accuracy rate, which I suspect is at least in the ballpark of success for most admins.MBisanz ^talk 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is excellent that you are willing to examine your admin work in this sort of way. I also saw that you recently requested an editor review. I wish that more admins who wade into controversial areas would be as open to feedback and self-examination. It's very commendable. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of "no consensus" appears to be original research that is inconsistent with the policy as I understand it. A "no consensus" outcome is appropriate even when there is a very uneven indication of views. When there are good arguments and strong cases on both sides of an AfD, and neither side makes a convincing enough argument that their conclusion is in the best interests of the encyclopedia, a no consensus is the correct outcome. A consensus is a consensus, not majority rule. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Nixon Pryor Roundtree

Hi there. I saw you deleted the Nixon Pryor Roundtree article as result of Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Nixon Pryor Roundtree , but there were two additional articles bundled with the nom that were not deleted: Greatest Hits (Richie Rich album) & Richie Rich Presents - Grabs, Snatches & Takes. --Raven1977 (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Red Coast deletion

MBisanz, in connection with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Coat, you may want to consider Sec tank and The Red Coat (comics). This was mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#deletion_rewquest_need_some_deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied at AN. MBisanz ^talk 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, The Red Coat (comics) is an exact copy (repost) of The Red Coat. (Not sure if it technically qualifies as a db-repost as it was posted before the original article was deleted, but it was certainly a duplicate.) And it is mentioned in the AfD. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boraskyniv

You've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boraskyniv two days too early and I do not see a consensus to redirect the article. As it currently stands, there is more of a consensus to delete it. So this is not a WP:SNOWBALL case. Therefore, I'm requesting that you overturn your closing and allow the discussion to continue for the full length. --Farix (Talk) 13:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Up The Irons

Hello. You closed my above AfD nomination as delete, which I (obviously, given the discussion) have no objection to. However, I've been in contact with the article's creator (User:Uptheironsnc) during the discussion and he thinks he can improve and source it. I'm not entirely sure that it's sourceable, but I'd be happy to give him the opportunity to try - would you mind undeleting it to his userspace so he can have a go? Thanks in advance. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done @ User:Uptheironsnc/UTI. MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)