User talk:MBisanz/Archive 8
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Advice on RfC
I've never done an RfC but have started one at User:Marc_Kupper/sandbox#RfC Granpuff. Could you please take a look to see if I'm on the right track or if there's a better course of action? Thanks. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the moves, most of them look good. Can you list the ones that are problematic? And along those lines, if you go ahead, maybe those are the ones you want to include. An RfC for good moves isn't going to be well received I don't think. My 2 cents. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Userify request
Hi, you deleted Heli USA. No worries, but could you please give me a copy? I think it might make a decent article, one day. Cheers, -- Chzz ► 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Done at User:Chzz/Heli USA. MBisanz talk 01:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Category: Wikipedia Climbers
Was there a reason that this was deleted with no feedback, talk, dialogue. Seems kind of strange I will re-create, and if somthings up, please let me know speednat (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Just still confused, G6 states "Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, deleting dated maintenance categories, or performing uncontroversial page moves" and none of those fit, looking at categories even if it was empty, which I don't think it was there was 4 days for me to put at least my name in it. I am in the process of creating a "successful" rock-climber userbox, that automatically puts the wikipedian into this category if they use it. Don't take me the wrong way I just would like to know Why?? speednat (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was an empty category. If it has a page in it now, it can be re-created. It seemed like the kind of category that would be created by accident since it was not formatted like a normal Category:Wikipedians by interest, so I figured it would be non-controversial to do. MBisanz talk 09:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- speednat, I'd suggest naming the category something like "Wikipedians interested in rock climbing" and linking it as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a sport. That would make it easy to tell that its a 'Wikipedians' type category and help prevent it from being accidentally deleted. You might also want to include the userbox on the category page itself as that is often done too. Also, you should include some logic code to make sure only User: pages are categorized. If you need a hand, let me know. Tothwolf (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
your edit on multi.source
Hi, FYI, I reverted your revert [1] - it is the same user. But anyway thanks for your attention. Regards -jkb- (cs.source) 09:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Nom
Thanks for the nom, I'll accept it and fill it out, but I'm about to fall asleep on the keyboard, I'll get to it once I wake up :) Q T C 11:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
"Abusing article creation"
Glad to note that you feel writing a decent-sized stub, with five references from reliable sources constitutes "abusing article creation", yet an administrator deleting an article based on perhaps 4 or 5 comments, while ignoring the first AfD (which was far lengthier and substantial) is no problem at all. If the intent of yourself and Fritz is to chase off people who write such stubs, consider it accomplished. H2O Shipper 11:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind deleting this please? The article was moved during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Northern Ireland Revolt, and you have only deleted the redirect. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done Thanks. MBisanz talk 01:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Could you possibly delete the reposted Paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland too please? It has already been reposted once at the title in the heading and protected from recreation there. Perhaps a stern word with the editor responsible is needed? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
your assistance please...
I was looking at an {{afd}} of an article that was recently restored. I had forgotten the problems I had asking the nominator to act in a civil and responsible manner. When I checked the talk page of the nominator I saw a note from you that he had retired, and planned to create a new wiki-id.
I vaguely know that policy allows a contributor to adopt a new wiki-id if they abandon their old one. Would you mind pointing me at that policy, so I can understand it better?
What I am particularly curious about is whether there is any support for those of us who had bad experiences with an individual under one of their previous wiki-ids to recognize them when they encounter us using their most recent wiki-id? Last September I got a very abusive comment left on my user page from a brand new contributor. Of course I wondered if they were someone I had encountered before, under a different wiki-id.
Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I went on record on the village pump to the allegations that new user left.
- Couple pages to help you
- If you recognize someone you think you know, I would suggest first emailing them using Special:EmailUser/Username your concerns or contacting a checkuser on the Arbitration Committee. You would want to avoid WP:OUTING the old account name unless there is abuse going on with the new account. MBisanz talk 02:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Decision to delete
You deleted the article on which I was working(7:49 am Mar 13 2009). It was not to be considered for a regular article until I had all the information together.
I am not sure why you deleted it? Perhaps I performed some kind of incorrect maintenance? I am just trying to learn the system and may have done something incorrectly.
Is it possible to get a copy of the material after it is deleted?
Thanks.Philipwsmith (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring it.Philipwsmith (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for Nicholas_Chan
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nicholas_Chan. 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. Ncknight (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Question before proposing for deletion review for "Sheree Silver"
A few weeks ago you deleted the article "Sheree Silver," and you told me that if I wanted to bring it back I should submit a deletion review. However, Deletion_Review stated step number 1 as: "discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review." So I thought I'd start here. The original article, when it was marked for AFD, was very short and I think it did meet most of the requirements for deletion at the time it was proposed. In conjunction with the discussion I therefore expanded the article with more information and more independent sources, although it was deleted regardless.
Are these new reasons enough to fulfill WP:Bio now?
http://wfoynews.blogspot.com/2008/10/family-on-wife-swap.html
(local news interview)
http://www.book-of-thoth.com/article1014.html
(reference to criticizing "rumpology")
http://www.myhomelifemag.com/08winter/08winter_basics.aspx
(she gave information to Home Life Magazine which they published)
http://pastguests.edfurbee.com/
(Past guest on local radio)
http://www.folioweekly.com/documents/August12.pdf
(Magazine that serves in the Jacksonville, Fl area: she predicted Obama would win, as well as some guy running in an election)
http://carynday-suarez.com/2009powawards.php
(Proof that her book won an award. It's with an organization that went out of business a few months ago, I called the number for confirmation.)
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-monitor8-2009mar08,0,4841840.story
(The LA Times did a piece on how the families in the episode were)
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/life/entertainment/news-article.aspx?storyid=133093&catid=19
(Jacksonville, FL News Broadcast "Good Morning Jacksonville" Interview about the last experience, this one, etc.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpEYXLpreA
(her kids give their side of the story in a YouTube video, to a First Coast News Producer)
http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_11861966
(Wife Swap husband criticizes Dr. Silver)
March 12, 2009 - Variety features "Wife Swap," in several articles and the executive producer names the Silver's first episode among the ten most memorable wife swaps in the show's five years on air. (Digital Variety has it at www.variety.com/article/VR1118001147.html)
http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/goingthroughchannels/2009/03/friday-march-13-2009-wife-swap.php
(Blog on show predictions with a matchup of scientist/psychic)
(NY Daily News Interviews Dr. Silver and Richard Heene, the other swap dad. Richard says she introduced him to the "psychic" realm, criticizes, and Dr. Silver admits one reason she did the show was the economy.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/mar/13/will-100th-wife-swap-be-different/
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090313/LIFE/903130336/-1/ENTERTAIN06
(Saying the wife Swap hundredth episode will be more of the same)
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=133615
(Latest Interview with the Jacksonville, Fl Broadcast "Good Morning Jacksonville", explains how she called the first kid an extraterrestrial, how UFOs are in this show, etc. This is on the day the hundredth episode will air).
(part of a set of interviews in march with a bunch of radio shows in the states, she talks about the rumor of controlling weather, her swap husband, and responds to criticism of her field)
March 13, 2009 8:00 pm - Wife Swap Silver/Heene (Show airs. Message board users label the show as "abusive." http://abc.go.com/primetime/wifeswap/index?pn=mb&cat=71886 One user commented, "It's the worst yet.")
Spring12 (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to suggest you present this evidence at WP:DRV, not because I disagree with your evidence, but because I disagree with admins overturning consensus based on their own views. I would prefer the community decide such issues. MBisanz talk 03:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for Sheree_Silver
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sheree_Silver. 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. Spring12 (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Closure of Guantanomo Bay attorny afd's
Hi. I respectfully disagree with your decision to redirect the attorneys in the face of a clear consensus to delete. There was no support for these redirects nor does it make sense to redirect a unnotable person to his notable employer. Redirects should only be used when there is a consensus for a redirect or the person is of borderline notability. Some of the attorneys were probably even speedy eligible. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I believe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James R. Crisfield is the AFD you are talking about? I see some Keep, some Weak Delete, some Delete, and some Merge/Redierct comments made in good faith. There wasnt a clear consensus to delete, and it seemed like a redirect would fit better to what everyone was looking for. MBisanz talk 03:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Truth is, I jumped the gun a bit and wasn't careful. Your closure of the the aforelinked afd caused lots of action on my watchlist because you edited the afd, the article, and the talkpage. Silly me, I for some reason assumed that all the watchlist activity meant that you were closing all the GB attorney afd's as redirects. Unlike the aforelinked afd, the others are clearly not notable and it is so represented at those afd's.
- But now that looking over the Crisfield afd more carefully, I still would have closed the afd as a delete instead of a merge. There were 3 deletes + the nom + 1 weak delete (= 4 1/2) vs. 1 keep by a SPA-IP + 1 weak keep (= ?) . There was 1 merge, which was the creator's proposal. I would consider that a consensus not to merge, but whatever. You're the admin, not me :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I actually consider myself a staunch member of the redirects-are-cheap camp, but don't think redirecting to an organization article that is essentially a job description article is the ideal thing to do. By redirecting Crisfield to Legal Advisor (OARDEC) we're pigeonholing him, essentially saying that this job description is this guy's whole life. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean to redirect to Finnish heraldry? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Nicholas Chan
I would like to request a review on reversing the deletion of the article on Nicholas Chan. Comments by chase78 appears to be on a witch hunt; references based on cached copies reference links within the article can be clicked on and verified. Nicholas Chan is regularly featured in print in Singapore on issues regarding enterprise, and is known within the entrepreneurial circles at large.
Information about Nicholas Chan as commented by FreeRangeFrog as not meeting WP:BIO is due to compilation of data from publicly available print media sources as referenced so as to provide for information insight not available on online mediums. Addition comment on myself being a SPA (whatever that is) is irrelevant. I write articles that I can clearly gather quantifiable and verifiable data from as I am not a full time wikipedia admin nor writer.
Additional reference with Wikipedia:Notability_(people) with regards to published secondary source data is met, with references made to newspapers such as Today, The Strait Times and Bernama repeatedly on the areas of enterprise.
Meeting the additional criteria of receiving entrepreneurship related awards and nominations such as the Spirit of Enterprise 2005 (with reference) and the Fortis Heros 2008 on the area of Social Entrepreneurship in Singapore (not keyed in, but with PDF article on Fortis website) further reinforces the article.
Appreciate your review and assistance. Thank you. Ncknight (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, there was a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Chan, which lasted 9 days. During that time, no one objected to the articles deletion, so that was taken as consensus to delete it. If you have new secondary sources you might consider a WP:Requests for undeletion, but otherwise I can't go back and overturn consensus. MBisanz talk 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are numerous secondary sources on hand with regards to the series of startups Nicholas Chan was involved in (with reference to the Serial Entrepreneur element) and a few print news articles (with reference to the Venture Capital element) gathered during 2008 and 2009 to be entered, until I found the article deleted yesterday.
- Notwithstanding the community discussion on the topic, I would like to bring to attention the manner of which chase78 raised the discussion which appears to be personally motivated as the contribution history of chase78 is skimpy and the request for deletion out of the ordinary. At this moment, appreciated if you can provide guidance on how to perform a proper request for undeletion. Thank you very much. Ncknight (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Best bet is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Instructions. MBisanz talk 03:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your assistance, it has been done. Added a subst:DRVNote in your talk page on this article already. (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_14#Nicholas_Chan
Deletion review for Lord of This World (Black Sabbath Song)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lord of This World (Black Sabbath Song). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Rangersarecool
Pardon me if I disagree but rangersarecool is a very smart 4th grader and would not make a account called rangerarecool1234. do you know who would? someone who wanted rangersarecool would. do you know who that is? davidthedograt. How do I know? im in his class. im also in david the dogman's class im also in foxcows, jeffhardys, and rangersarecool. if it wasnt for davidthedograt rangersarecool wouldn't be blocked. darknesswolf is another account used for cantributions, not vandalism! he was trying to get away from niv, who new what rangersarecools password was. (he found out while he was typing it in class) then he made darknesswolf. then a classmate comes and says ooooh lets make a account called rangerarecool1234 and create vandalism so they'l think im rangersarecool! oh and for good measure, he says he is rangersarecool on your talk page. hes not that dumb. hes in a gifted class, we all are. (exept sometimes I wonder about davidthedograt...) enyway hes a straght A student in gifted 4th grade and loves wikipedia. he always talks about it! sorry to disturb you, im just angry at the people who blocked him, and didnt unblock him. Jinxyouowemeasoda (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
FlatPress
I would like you to reconsider the deletion of FlatPress article. If you look at the Weblog software article, "Free and open source software" section, three of the first four applications have less content than the FlatPress article. Also, FlatPress is one of the few applications that do not require a database, only a web server and PHP. Alexandrul.ct (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlatPress was open 10 days and had many users supporting deletion. I suggest you find more reliable sources documenting it and then take it to WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz talk 00:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but see if this one would help:
Blogging for Dummies
by Brad Hill
ISBN 0471770841
pg 369
I'd think that would handle WP:N and WP:RS...--Tothwolf (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Has anyone responded back on this article yet? If not, if you feel like moving it over to a subpage in my userspace I'll see what I can do with it after I wrap up the project I'm currently working on. Its too bad no one did a quick Google books search during the AfD but considering the lack of participants its not too surprising. Based on what I've seen CMS software articles are going though AfD at an alarming rate lately too. Tothwolf (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Moved to User:Tothwolf/FlatPress. Good luck. MBisanz talk 22:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you help me?
I am having a hard time. I feel that I am being targeted by trolls that are vandalizing my efforts to improve wikipedia.
Right now what I need help with is that someone has taken the discussion about deleting the article from the top of the article. Can we please have that back at the top of the article, as well as a tag saying that this article has been vandalized.
Maybe I can take it from there. Thanks
- Responded at Talk:Classical_Hamiltonian_quaternions#I_give_up_now.2C_like_I_said_I_would.__No_more_troll_food. MBisanz talk 19:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
MyInfo removal
I would like to know why the article [MyInfo] was deleted.
First, the Softpedia article was mistakenly attributed to the software author. You can easily see that the review is written by SoftPedia's software review editor Ionut Ilascu. You can also see that the newest version of MyInfo has no editor's review yet and uses the software author description instead.
In addition, MyInfo has a number of additional sources:
- Nominated for best Business Software Application by Shareware Industry Awards
- Reviewed by Wall Street Journal Online columnist Jeremy Wagstaff
- More links: this, reviewed in San Diego Daily Transcript, this, and included in DMOZ
In addition there is a whole page devoted on this software in this book and there was an article and an interview with the software author in Wall Street Journal Online (which is available only to paid subscribers, I am afraid).
I think that for a relatively small software niche like MyInfo's one, these sources are enough to qualify the article as notable. riot_starter (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyInfo where the Wikipedia community decided to delete the article. If there are new sources, you can present them at a WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz talk 19:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What would you suggest?
How would you suggest dealing with this? [2] IMO its a personal attack and after I pointed out WP:UP#NOT #10 they made this refinement edit [3] Today they edited it again to point the link at the archive. [4] Tothwolf (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'd ignore it. It is one comment on a userpage that no one will ever see. Best to forget and move on. MBisanz talk 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Prairie coneflower
I didn't understand the reason you gave for deleting the redirect "Prairie coneflower". Debresser (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- The page it pointed at, Ratibida, was deleted, so it was a broken redirect that I deleted as part of housekeeping. MBisanz talk 19:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Then how come that when I try to create this page it doesn't say "You are trying to recreate a deleted page, Ratibida"? Debresser (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, it wasn't deleted. Apparently when you created Prairie coneflower, you pointed it at a page that did not exist. MBisanz talk 22:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
That is precisely what I did. And I did so because Ratibida is the only of four types of coneflowers that doesn't have its own article yet, and I hoped that this redirect might be an additional incentive for some editor to write that article. I agree we usualy write the articles before the redirects, but still. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Right, but no one sees a broken redirect like that since the redirect doesn't show up as a separate content page for most people, so it just shows up on the error reports as a broken page. MBisanz talk 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Understood. It would perhaps be a nice idea to request the article to be written, and then put back the redirect. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
History merge
Could you do a history merge for the {{IRC clients msdos}} template? It should have been marked as {{R from merge}} but none of the templates that were merged to create {{IRC clients}} were marked. The others were still redirects and I've gone ahead and added the {{R from merge}} to make it very clear these were all merged into {{IRC clients}} (which I've since merged into {{IRC footer}}...) GFDL compliance is a chore ;P Tothwolf (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
James_Arthur_Ray_(2nd_nomination)) for deletion link error
Hello, I was just noticing that your link for the 2008 "keep" discussion actually leads to the 2005 "delete" discussion. I was pretty annoyed at reading his page and got even more dumbfounded reading the "keep" discussion. Just a pile of mumbo jumbo, but at least the link should be corrected, even better, it would be nice if the previous discussions were also made obvious, if only on this discussion page. NYT best seller list is not notability, that was so depressing. I found the 2008 discussion by poking around a little:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Arthur_Ray_(2nd_nomination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.14.125 (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
regarding Caricom Airways deletion
Dear sir. I have some documents that could proof the existence of Caribbean Commuter Airways, (Caricom Airways) if interested, please e-mail me at s.chin@caricomairways.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.2.190.58 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, content must be verifiable, so you would need to present your evidence at WP:DRV. MBisanz talk
Deletion review for MyInfo
An editor has asked for a deletion review of MyInfo. 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. riot_starter (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
— 16 March 2009- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for the timestamp on this close. The "wikiclock" said it was 16th but "AFD time" (however that's figured) seems to be a few minutes slow. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to restore the list of Green Green anime episodes by a step-by-step undo, since Wikipedia will not allow me to directly undo the post of the person who made the initial change (204.184.26.39). However, you appear to have an automatic routine set up to undo the corrections I am trying to put in. That being the case, I ask that you restore the page to the point immediately before the vandalism done by 204.184.26.39 so that the list of episodes is re-displayed.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.37.62 (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.37.62 (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
e107 article deletion
e107 is an open-source CMS (content management system) whose article has been deleted due to (I am guessing) lack of input/defense from interested parties, after someone on a misguided de-clutteration jag decided it wasn't worth the non-ink it was non-printed on. I've been trying to compare various free, script-installable web content management systems. Wikipedia has entries for many of them. Until a few days ago, it had an entry for e107. simplescripts.com (via bluehost, my provider) offers it as one of their installs. I was hoping for a third-party take on the system, or a comparison of its features. But I won't find it here.
Google surely provides enough data to vouch for e107's existence, development vitality, and sizable installation base. Example info: http://php.opensourcecms.com/scripts/details.php?scriptid=19
Looking at some of the other entries here, it looks as if you are promoting deletion of articles about CMS's in general. These are of interest to the internet community, have business consequences in many cases, are of contemporary interest. These can't have the same notability and reference standards as say, dog breeds -- if you (and the 'wikipedia community' that meets without requiring any sort of representative jury or quorum standards) are judging this kind of content as if it were fixed, non-evolving, demonstrably of interest to a majority of this or that institution in which some kind of authority is vested, etc., I think you are making a mistake. There are small but vibrant user and developer communities that are working with projects, systems, etc. that will not make it into PC World or NYTimes or whatever, because these are not widely known to people working in different areas. Some topics should be closer to the cutting edge than to the tail end of received (institutionally supported) opinion.
There are nuances related to category that should be recognized (and this is aside from the fact that I disagree with the general mindset that wikipedia should be culled of niche articles or allegedly sub-AAA-notability subjects). It doesn't make sense to delete technical articles because they deal with small projects. It makes sense to delete articles that are advertisements, or so broken with bias that editing becomes futile. It doesn't make sense not to apply the same standards evenly to articles in the same general category (which means dealing with people who know the subject, not asking a bunch of e.g., technical writers, or MBA's, what they think of, I don't know, MINIX).
Lastly, if you delete, or promote and achieve deletion, and then ask interested parties to file a request for undeletion as a means of redress, you are doing damage to the human spirit, subjecting it to the dumb violence of bureaucratic rectitude. Electrons may be inifinite, but human time and effort are not. It is much easier to delete than to create, and when in doubt, editing should always be turned to first and second and third. If there is any hope of salvaging work so that someone else might profit it from it in the future, I would ask that we please nurture that possibility. Skandha101 (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, the Wikipedia community deleted the article at this discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/E107_(software) for lacking notability in reliable sources. All articles must have coverage in reliable sources. These sources do not have to be paper sources, but must be reliable. Also, I have not targeted CMS articles, I've closed over 4,000 deletion discussion (see also User:MBisanz/AfD) per community practice that topics must meet certain criteria before they can be included in Wikipedia. The reason the AfD process exists is so that editors can have a chance to make sure an article cannot be edited to something worthwhile, before deleting. MBisanz talk 06:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, well, this is the internet. "reliable sources" are hard to come by. Blogs don't count. Personal sites don't count. This, plus some common sense, is itself is enough to tell you that something is broken. Sure, anyone can start a blog. Or a vanity site. But some blogs are widely taken seriously or taken as reliable and authoritative (security, tech news, come to mind). Because of the way net publishing is done (drupal, joomla, wordpress, etc. all support blogging or blog modules) a lot of the big media sites have blogs. 'new media' is basically blogs. Some of those sites are crap, and some have legitimate reporters (and are more and more often cited by 'traditional' journalists or media themselves). Anyway, this is basically a culture war, but debate is prematurely foreclosed due to the zeal of many citizen editors to abide by the Rules As They Are Written. I'm just saying you should think it about. If you're taking part in so many deletion-quests, keep one eye on the changing landscape. Eventually, wikipedia will just be replaced as the de facto open compendium if it will not welcome new subjects and new editors, or niche subjects and niche editors. This shouldn't be understood as loosening standards, but as changing the parameters in a nuanced way. So, it has to be done intelligently. But I'm afraid that the system, as it is, drives away people who have the right kind of judgment to define new and useful parameters. One size does not fit all for all topic areas (or maybe it does, and I don't understand wikipedia). You're going to get all these afd's where no one opposes deletion, 'cause the relevant proponents already gave up and left in disgust. Skandha101 (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well we have several nuanced notability guidelines at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, so it really isn't a one-size fits all model. And we have the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to do the exact kind of vetting that you speak of. But at the end of the day, we work on the consensus model, so we do need a wide variety of people to apply those guidelines to ensure we maintain the right balance of inclusiveness and verifiability. MBisanz talk 08:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I can't really disagree with that. Take care. --Skandha101 • 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Frasier's Curse
I see that you closed the Frasier's Curse AFD as delete, without further comment. Are you sure deletion does not violate the GFDL? As I noted in the discussion, many phrases were copied from Frasier's Curse into the Frasier (season 6) article, so it's my understanding that we need to at least keep the history of the former.
I'm not an expert on the GFDL -- pretty much everything I know about it I've gleaned from AFD discussions -- so I may be completely wrong. I would appreciate some clarification on this issue, though. Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 19:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well there are a bunch of ways to comply with GFDL. You can list the 5 largest contributors to the deleted article in an edit summary to the retained article, you can copy the history of the deleted article to the talk page of the retained article, you can do a history merge of the edits, but that breaks up the history, you can copy the list of contributors to the new article and then revert the edit, or you can do a protected redirect to the new article. Most of the time we don't care since in general Wikipedia does a poor job of following the GFDL, but since you asked, I've created a protected redirect. MBisanz talk 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for Egyptian Yoga)
This page was deleted. I ask you for a restoration of this article, because there were some big mistakes in the debate. The debate mentioned an other article about this subject that had been deleted in January. I think the article I proposed was very different from the precedent one that I read in Wikibin. It seems to me that my article was deleted just because some administrators made a wrong relationship between my page and another one that had been deleted before. When a member of the deletion debate, Gordon... (I apologize, I forgot his name), presents as argument a relationship between my words "academic references" and the note "see the numerous self-publications by Muata Ashby", it is a complete mistake. My note about publications by Ashby was concerning an other part of the article and was not presented as an academic reference. The academic references I had given were very different, they refered all to several University Ph. D. : Lilyan Kesteloot, Dieux d'eau du Sahel, Voyage à travers les mythes de Seth à Tyamaba, L'Harmattan/IFAN, Paris, 2007, ISBN 978-2-296-04384-8, p. 75. Paul L. Hamilton, African People's contributions to world civilizations : Shattering the Myths, R.A. Renaissance Publications, 1995, p. 129. M. Adam, Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'Etranger, PUF, Paris, 1984, p. 256. Lilyan Kesteloot is Director of Researchs in IFAN (Dakar) and Professor at the University Cheikh Anta Diop (Dakar), she is a great specialist of African cultures. M. Adam was professor of philosophy at Bordeaux University, in France. L. Hamilton is Ph. D, too. About the subject itself, it is a fact that there are several yoga schools and yoga masters troughout the world who teach Egyptian Yoga and wrote about it. Has a Wikipedia aministrator really to put in debate a fact that exists since long time ? My article was not about Khane himself, but about the branches of Egyptian yoga that I know. Khane cannot be forgotten, because he is currently considered in Europe, Africa and Canada as one of the main exponents of Egyptian Yoga. But I had mentioned other branches that are completely independent of his school. It is true that the main references I had cited come not from the USA (except the recent self-publications by Ashby and the book by Pr. L. Hamilton), but from UK, France, Spain and Senegal. Is the English version of Wiki dedicated only to USA ? Is something notable just when it is notable in the USA ? Is the rest of the world completely nonexistent ?Neferhotep (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here are the COI links where this was discussed. I was curious so I looked them up. Hard to tell much from them without looking at the actual edit histories but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was assumed these were the same article since they had the same title. Tothwolf (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, you are right that this is confusing Tothwolf. We have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian yoga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga, which were both clearly delete. If the COIN reports were confusing the users, that might be grounds to overturn, but I would prefer a DRV to let the community review the matter and compare the articles and sources to figure out which one should be returned, if either. Also, Neferhotep, you started this section with "Deletion Review", but did not file a Deletion Review at WP:Requests for undeletion, do you wish to do that? If you want to and cannot figure out the coding, I can file a pro-forma request for you. MBisanz talk 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I thank you for your responses. I don't know how to do a WP:Requests for undeletion. I would be grateful to you if you can file a pro-forma request for me.Neferhotep (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for Egyptian yoga
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Egyptian yoga. 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. As you requested. Prodego talk 23:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could just get some feedback on the discussion there. I'm a bit distressed...I've disagreed with the outcomes of deletion discussions many times before but never as strongly as with this article. I also feel very strongly that the discussion had No consensus. I asked many questions. I feel like the other editors responded only by dismissing my comments, not by referring to sources and to wikipedia guidelines. Examples:
- "I don't think the Circuit City case where he's quoted by the LA Times is notable." by User:THF. This is an assertion and conflicts very strongly with wikipedia guidelines. The case might not be notable to a lawyer but it is notable in the wikipedia sense because it has received coverage: [5] and it might be interesting to people interested in circuit city. (I certainly found it interesting as I am actually quite fascinated by questions of how that company was managed.)
- People kept referring to the "Notability is not inherited" guideline, but after reading the section Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED, I'm not seeing how that guideline is applicable here. People made comments like "having notable clients doesn't make you notable", which was true, but the fact that his work with his clients has attracted media attention in numerous reliable independent sources seems to establish notability to me--and no one addressed/acknowledged this.
- No one addressed what I said repeatedly about the wikipedia guideline WP:N, which reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
I find this deletion to be highly inconsistent with guidelines. If you could read over the discussion in more depth, and just give me some feedback on my talk page, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Right now, I'm planning on very cautiously re-creating the page in userspace until I have a fully-sourced page that I can just launch up there. I'm hoping that will convince people. I just wanted some outside feedback as to what is going on here because I can't help but feel like people just ganged up on me for no good reason--almost as if the other lawyers in the discussion somehow had a bone to pick with this particular guy or with the idea of including more lawyers in wikipedia, for some unknown reason. Cazort (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- You would need to ask the individual participants in the AFD for their specific views, but in reviewing their comments, I think the point they are making is that notability comes from coverage about a person, not coverage about someone they are associated with that incidentally mentions them. For instance, a newspaper review covering the Rolling Stones and mentioning that Garage Band opened for them, contributes to the Rolling Stones notability, but not Garage Band. In this case it seems the people were looking for articles on the lawyer, not on his clients that mention he is their lawyer. Overall the consensus is rather clear, I'm sorry I can't be of more help. MBisanz talk 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Math 55 No Consensus
Regarding your recent closure of the AfD discussion of Math 55, what happens now that there is no consensus? Does the page stay? Acceptable (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- It means the page is kept since the community could not decide on deleting it. It is weaker than a Keep, so article improvements may still be required or someone could open a new AfD discussion in the future. MBisanz talk 20:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This was relisted for a more thorough consensus. But from what I've seen, it was only one !vote short of a WP:SNOW, and that vote was from the article's creator, who replied systematically to every Delete !vote, and the "quality" of his replies prompted me to openly invoke WP:DENY. One might argue that he may not understand English very well, but I doubt that. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've found the sometimes the best way to deal with a SPA account acting like that is to let the community show him the strong consensus for deletion and that he is getting his "day in court" so to speak. Hopefully that has worked now. MBisanz talk 03:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Alan Clay - Clown - article deletion
Hi, Please could you userfy this page for us so we can edit it to suit the Wikipedia guidelines?
The clown category in Wikipedia has 46 American clowns, many of whom are less notible than Alan Clay. In the Australian clown section there are currently two clowns, neither of whom are still alive.
I'm sorry for the advertising in the first draft of the article. We just copied the resume. But we are happy to put the time in to turn it into a proper article.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrishAUS (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Wellworths (GB)
Hi there, random administrator whose name I've seen around quite a bit.
In the process of trying to grow my experience on Wikipedia, I made a non-admin closure on AFD:Wellworths (GB). I wanted to get a second opinion to see whether or not my closure was appropriate and justified. Thanks! Matt (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well it was a good attempt, but it was a narrow enough margin that I would have left it for an admin to do. Wikipedia:NAC#Appropriate_closures gives a good guide as to when non-admins should close AFDs. Since there were good faith delete comments, that really wouldn't have been a good NAC. MBisanz talk 04:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Recent AfD
Hi. An article was recently deleted through WP:Articles for deletion/Rajinder Kumar Kamboj. However the content had also been moved to Rajender K Kamboj where it still exists. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
File renaming
I've seen you started the shiny new feature. If you plan on using it at Category:Media requiring renaming, I have put up a bot request to handle those files instead, I think that would be much easier than doing it manually. Just a heads up to save you unnecessary work. Regards SoWhy 08:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, that won't work, at least not well. A lot of the template requested renames have illegal characters in them like : and / so a human needs to correct them. Also, a good number are missing the file extension or have the incorrect extension. I think this is going to be a by-hand task. With Splarka's script, I've done about 250 today, so 3 or 4 admins working on it should be able to do it in a few days. MBisanz talk 08:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, those can be filtered out and ignored but missing extensions can be fixed by the bot (it just needs to compare old extension = new extension after all) . I know it's doable by admins but a bot could be useful to do it in future and after all, there are multiple backlogs to handle for admins, so I think those 3-4 admins should rather do them instead (which is why I will plunge into CAT:SD now). But I cannot stop you if you want to do it manually ;-) SoWhy 08:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just a note, I don't know if someone told you already but there seems a bug with renaming (see this comment), so you might want to be careful or pause it until it's been resolved. Regards SoWhy 12:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Sophia Lamar
May I ask why you deleted that article? Sophia's definitely notable - she's been on major talk shows to speak of her past as part of New York's early 90's club scene, is a contributor to numerous publications, and continues to perform internationally with her art. I don't know how good the article actually was, but she definitely needs one. Could you at least reopen it...? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.84.174 (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Lamar where the community decided to delete the article. You would need to make a WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz talk 23:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a real mess, it was listed for AfD and deleted, restored at DRV but the AfD template was never re-added but it has been relisted several times since. Now seems to be a hoax, though hardly blatant given its taken this long to discover. Could you please delete, as the AfD though not 100% procedurally correct, seems to have reached an firm consensus. Forward planning failure (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was my original deletion that was overturned at DRV, so I can't be the closing admin. Sorry. MBisanz talk 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Forward planning failure (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a confirmed sock of indef-blocked troll User:RMHED. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
OTRS issue
I was wondering if you could take a look at 2009031310000561. Further information at here.-Andrew c [talk] 18:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Abuse filter
Can you clarify what you meant by "selectively reenabled"? - Mgm|(talk) 19:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Moving images questions
Hi. I noticed that you fixed the misspelling that the name that File talk:Brookwood cemetery 5.jpg previously contained. It is one of many images that I have marked as containing a spelling error in the title. (I'm a member of WP:TYPO so this thing comes up a lot.) It is my understanding that it is now as easy as moving an article title to move a file title. And that you must be an admin to do the moving. Is that correct? The old method of manually re-uploaded and moving the history was an absurdly complex process. It used to be that users could be granted move status but I don't think that's the case anymore. It'd be really great if I was able to move images but the last time I RFA'ed I got SNOWBALL'ed, which kind of sucked because I've contributed more to wikipedia than some of the admins that voted me down. Anyway, is moving image names as simple as just moving now for admins? Jason Quinn (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, not the case of granting "move" status, and it is disabled anyway per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#File_moving_disabled. It is as easy for admins as any other page move (except you need to be precise with namespace names and extensions). MBisanz talk 20:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Death.jpg
File:Death.jpg and File:Death (DC Comics).jpg seem messed up. As text, the first is a redirect to the second. However, the media is still associated with the first file.
.jpg){kind=link}
The media needs to be redone so it's in the right place, Chris Bachalo and Death (DC Comics) need to be updated, and finally File:Death.jpg needs to be removed entirely so commons:File:Death.jpg is usable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
KVIrc logo
Could you look into undeleting File:Kvirclogo.png? This is the logo image for KVIrc, which is GPL software. I'm not sure why it was deleted under CSD I7 as the upload log shows it was tagged with the {{GPL}} template. [6] Tothwolf (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AKvirclogo.png){kind=link}
- Well, this [7] explains what happened to it... I can't help but wonder just how many 1000s of images that bot tagged improperly. Tothwolf (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I restored and tweaked it, it still needs a description and source and stuff, but should be good for a few days. Yea, that bot tagged alot of images, about 200,000 deleted, I managed to save a large number of logos, but couldn't catch all the errors. MBisanz talk 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Did anyone ever comb the deletion logs to see what else should have been restored? I'm sure I'll come across more of these as I really start digging into the IRC articles. I'll see what I can find out for the source on this logo. It may just need {{logo fur}} or something. Tothwolf (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, at the time I was fixing over 200 images a day and not getting enough sleep, and still the bot was beating me in speed, didn't have the time to check the logs. MBisanz talk 22:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like the image may be under a Creative Commons Share Alike license, at least according to the original website where it came from [8] Its still possible to process those logs isn't it? Might make for an interesting project to code up something to build a chart/graph from that mess.
Seems like I came across another one of these logo problems too didn't I?Now I remember, it was File:Xaric screen shot.jpg. It didn't get deleted but it was re-tagged improperly (also free software tagged as non-free) and it was removed from a number of IRC articles and even the {{IRC-stub}} stub template. If you check the edit history, you can see that this [9] is where the problems began for that image. Tothwolf (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)- Well I have no idea how to process those logs, you might ask Bjweeks (talk · contribs) or MZMcBride (talk · contribs), they know those kind of things better than I do. MBisanz talk 22:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've kinda got my hands full atm with the cleanup tasks I've taken on with all the IRC stuff, so the image deletion logs thing is just one of those things for my to do list I guess. I added the license template to File:Kvirclogo.png and hopefully I did it right. I'm not too familiar with the standard way to tag CC licensed images. Tothwolf (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well I have no idea how to process those logs, you might ask Bjweeks (talk · contribs) or MZMcBride (talk · contribs), they know those kind of things better than I do. MBisanz talk 22:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like the image may be under a Creative Commons Share Alike license, at least according to the original website where it came from [8] Its still possible to process those logs isn't it? Might make for an interesting project to code up something to build a chart/graph from that mess.
- No, at the time I was fixing over 200 images a day and not getting enough sleep, and still the bot was beating me in speed, didn't have the time to check the logs. MBisanz talk 22:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Did anyone ever comb the deletion logs to see what else should have been restored? I'm sure I'll come across more of these as I really start digging into the IRC articles. I'll see what I can find out for the source on this logo. It may just need {{logo fur}} or something. Tothwolf (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I restored and tweaked it, it still needs a description and source and stuff, but should be good for a few days. Yea, that bot tagged alot of images, about 200,000 deleted, I managed to save a large number of logos, but couldn't catch all the errors. MBisanz talk 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lazyb&oldid=169798798#Disputed_fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Kvirclogo.png){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Xaric_screen_shot.jpg&diff=125097548&oldid=94992556){kind=link}
Clerk ping
[10] About a temp NOINDEX copy with history for evidence...? rootology (C)(T) 22:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Elina Fuhrman
you totally confused me here.... StarM 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh yea, my script failed to change the /Log page transclusions, so I just reverted and re-ran it. Whoopsie. MBisanz talk 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- damn scripts not doing what they're supposed to do to make our lives simple :) Think I saw something about a birthday -- hope you had a good day. StarM 01:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflict on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bass player
Hi there-- I just had an edit conflict with you on the Bass player Afd. Here's what I had written:
Keep This needs to be a dabpage with 3 alternatives, Bass Player (the album), Bassist, and Bass Player (magazine). The third is a redlink, which per MOS:DABRL is acceptable since it has incoming links from multiple other articles requesting the article be written. In any case I'll write it tomorrow if I get a chance. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Should I just go ahead and change it back to a dabpage, or would that be warring? Or am I mistaken in my reading of MOS:DABRL? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let me role back my close, you comment, and I'll leave it open for a bit longer. MBisanz talk 03:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Works for me, thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bass player
Per request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bass player, please close this off. Sorry, I'm no expert. I'm still feeling my way around a bit. Thank you. Belasted (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done, no problem, my first articles were also deleted, it just takes time. MBisanz talk 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the encouragement, but I did not write that article, nor have I written any article. I was just requesting it for deletion and my lack of experience simply pertained to the deletion of articles/disambiguation pages. But thanks for your help. Belasted (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Happy birthday! (I think. I just read the conversation above this.) Belasted (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Obama article arbitration
With reference to your note about my being a party or not,[11] the comment and use of a question mark in my discussion header was more an expression of confusion as to the scope of the issue than a request to be dismissed - I have changed it accordingly. I would think that as a procedural matter my request that we not entertain Noroton's vendetta against me is something we can take care of via a motion or workshop discussion, rather than handling now at the final stage of accepting this as a case. I would rather not consider that now, because I imagine most arbitrators are not keen to make a preliminary ruling on anything before the case even starts. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Canvassing
any chance of coming to the NYC meetup, weekend after this on the 29th? DGG (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Another deleted image
I found another image that was deleted by that bot. File:Acrophobia screenshot.png Looks like the it was caused by the page rename from Acrophobia (game) to Acrophobia (video game). Tothwolf (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- done. MBisanz talk 02:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Is there any license or attibution info for File:Acrophobia.gif that isn't already present in File:Acrophobia screenshot.png? Tothwolf (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for taking care of that vandal and sockpuppet who kept harassing me on my talk page ;). DougsTech (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
DougsTech (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Greets! I have seen you closed the discussion. I just wanted to note that one of the nominated articles, namely After Forever (song), was deleted against WP:MUSIC policy. It was deleted under the supposition that it is not a single, but it was released as a single. I noted that in the discussion and presented a source, but I was ignored. The article also contained several sources including books and magazines. I would be glad if you can do something about it. Thanks and have a nice day!-- LYKANTROP ✉ 09:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I also reviewed this discussion and am not seeing a clear consensus to delete. There is a majority of people saying to delete but they don't seem to be really engaging the issues raised by the minority of people arguing to keep. I was under the impression that deletion discussions are not a vote and are not really supposed to be run by majority rule but rather by consensus. Cazort (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you look at Wikipedia:Rough_consensus#Rough_consensus and my personal closing thoughts at User:MBisanz/AfD, it isn't a vote count, but an assessment of the good faith views of the participants. In this case a large consensus of people believed the songs failed music notability and a small consensus of people felt the sources established notability. Since both sides held those views in good faith and there was no incontrovertible evidence (copyvio, etc), the overall consensus was to delete the articles. MBisanz talk 20:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- When there is a disagreement between arguments based on sources and arguments based on opinion, the arguments based on sources ought to prevail unless there is a clear reason for discounting those sources. No reason was given by those arguing to delete why the sources presented were not sufficient. And "rough consensus" does not mean a "rough majority" of people arguing to delete. "AFD is not a vote" applies whether you discount non-policy-based or opinion-based arguments or not. Consensus means "general agreement", and that was clearly not present. A "large consensus" versus a "small consensus" means "no consensus", unless "large" is much greater than "small". DHowell (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The argument made by the deleting side was that the sources did not establish notability, that moved it to delete. MBisanz talk 07:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is not clear to me how did you decide to which side to turn. "After Forever" was a single (not just a song), so it doesnt need to chart or anything of the things that a common song needs to do to be notable. So I came up with an argument that nobody disproved. What is then the reason of the deletion? It doesnt seem relevant to me to delete it just because the majority wanted to delete that when they could not disprove the argument of the other side. If 20 people decide to delete The Beatles, does it get deleted if no one else notes that it is nominated?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 13:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The argument made by the deleting side was that the sources did not establish notability, that moved it to delete. MBisanz talk 07:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- When there is a disagreement between arguments based on sources and arguments based on opinion, the arguments based on sources ought to prevail unless there is a clear reason for discounting those sources. No reason was given by those arguing to delete why the sources presented were not sufficient. And "rough consensus" does not mean a "rough majority" of people arguing to delete. "AFD is not a vote" applies whether you discount non-policy-based or opinion-based arguments or not. Consensus means "general agreement", and that was clearly not present. A "large consensus" versus a "small consensus" means "no consensus", unless "large" is much greater than "small". DHowell (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you look at Wikipedia:Rough_consensus#Rough_consensus and my personal closing thoughts at User:MBisanz/AfD, it isn't a vote count, but an assessment of the good faith views of the participants. In this case a large consensus of people believed the songs failed music notability and a small consensus of people felt the sources established notability. Since both sides held those views in good faith and there was no incontrovertible evidence (copyvio, etc), the overall consensus was to delete the articles. MBisanz talk 20:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! I just wanted to ask you - if you dont want to un-delete the article - could you please provide the source of the article, so that we can use the information that it contained, please? Thank you :) -- LYKANTROP ✉ 15:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- If 20 people said The Beatles should be deleted for failing some criteria and no one said anything against deletion, then yes that would indicate consensus to delete the article. I've put After Forever in your userspace at User:Lykantrop/After Forever (song). MBisanz talk 21:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Joshua L. Dratel
I'd appreciate your opinion. You closed the {{afd}} of Joshua L. Dratel. This was one of thirteen nominations for deletion made by the same individual in one fell swoop.
I acknowledged that there was some merit in some of their nominations. But in Dratel's case, and in several other, in my opinion, the nominator lapsed in filing poorly researched nominations on notable individuals.
I've listed some of the additional references for Dratel here
If you had been aware that Dratel had been so extensively covered, would you still have concluded the article merited deletion?
If you do not think the additional references are sufficient to establish notability, what addition do you think would be required?
Do you think that it would be appropriate for you to userify the original article, to allow additional references to be incorporated into it? Am I correct that if you, as the deleting administrator, are satisfied that a userified article has been sufficiently improved, you can authorize its restoration to article space, without requiring a DRV?
If you are prepared to userify the article, could you please do so here -- User:Geo Swan/review/Joshua L. Dratel?
- You get a lot of requests. Maybe my request for userification to User:Geo Swan/review/Joshua L. Dratel was drowned out by other's requests. So I am repeating that request. Could you please either userify the article, or offer the reason you think you should decline my request? Geo Swan (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Image advice
Hi, Matt. I need some guidance about correcting a minor upload problem. I ran across this photo. It seems someone uploaded a file using a previous title. The old photo belonged in the infobox of Dorothy Dietrich -- and it appears to be properly licensed at Commons. The new photo is used in the Polish WP here (there isn't an article on the Englsh WP) and has public domain licensing there, but appears to be using the same Dorothy Dietrich photo licensing info. What is the proper procedure here? Should the newer photo upload simply be deleted, or should the two be separated and then proper licensing docs requested for the second photo? Or is a CSD tag appropriate on the second photo? There is probably a simple fix to this, but I wanted to avoid causing any mistaken deletions -- and, of course, would rather know the procedure myself. Regards. — CactusWriter | needles 10:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well right now there are no files at the English wikipedia, they are all at commons. Ideally the files should be split out into 2 versions and each properly licensed. Whether that means downloading the old version of the first image and re-uploading or downloading and reuploading the current image and then deleting the last revision, that is all up to you. MBisanz talk 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for the response. I'll delete the current version, however I won't be able to reupload it again because I am unable to locate the user who originally uploaded it to the Commons. Personally, the photo appears to me to be a scan from a yearbook and is probably under copyright. — CactusWriter | needles 16:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for helping me out, and I really appreciate it. Hopefully everything is taken care of now. I made a stronger password with letters and numbers this time. I had the false impression that 8 random numbers would be hard to crack, obviously I was wrong. Landon1980 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| Your hard work at AfD is appreciated. Heck of a lot of AfDs closed, and kudos for that. There will disagreements about some the closes, which is why we need bold admins to handle the tough ones. Enigmamsg 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC) |
Are you sure about your close here? Surely the fact that this is a copyright violation outweighs any other arguments? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I did think about that, and realized Wikisource might have different fair use rules than enwiki (I know Wikiquote is much more liberal for instance), so as long as they know what they are getting, it is their choice. MBisanz talk 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that Wikisource editors are responsible for making their own decisions, but in practice just tagging it here means that we will be hosting the article indefinitely, so are responsible for any copright violation until it is transwikied. This was the last article that I tagged for transwikiing there, and it still hasn't been done after more than a year. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I bugged a Sourcican at User_talk:Jayvdb#Fair_use, so it shouldn't last long. MBisanz talk 01:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that Wikisource editors are responsible for making their own decisions, but in practice just tagging it here means that we will be hosting the article indefinitely, so are responsible for any copright violation until it is transwikied. This was the last article that I tagged for transwikiing there, and it still hasn't been done after more than a year. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Berkeley Systems logo
Could you check into File:Berkeley Systems logo.PNG? It doesn't look like a bot deletion, but it might be something that can be fixed with a simple template addition. It might be good to have the original company logo back on the Berkeley Systems article since it looks like I'll probably end up doing some work on that article while working on a related article. Tothwolf (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Homosocratic
The words homosocratic, autosocratic and isosocratic along with a host of other obvious conjunctives of Socratic are in use in academic circles but usually not in publications and often made up on the fly in an attempt to explain concepts. I have been in many conversations where Latin or Greek conjunctives were resorted to. I do not know anyone who would publish a paper using one. The papers that do get published will not be found in Google because the journals do not permit Google indexing.
The reason the word Homosocratic is so important is because it is being used to describe Wikipedia and Wikipedia like institutions. There is an entire university using the homosocratic process and even a movement in Wikiversity to get them to institute a homosocratic interaction for learners.
Is there some other word you would like them to use. The word homosocratic is a reasonable use common sense exception to the rule against words not found in Google. 69.39.49.27 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, the WP community decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosocratic to delete the page, you need to go to WP:Requests for undeletion MBisanz talk 05:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Mailing list
Please will you send a test email when you have a moment. I think I've set up the permissions correctly, and a tailored error message too, so your test will prove the efficacy of one! --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. Never saw it. I'll take another look when I get 5 minutes. Did you receive anything back at all? --Dweller (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
What to do the morning after
Just a quick question. You just deleted List of controversial non-fiction books based on my nomination. Is there any robot or procedure to remove the now dead links to this page? Or are they just cleaned up by and by by editors who see the red links? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Usually it is just done in the course of editing, but I just ran a script to delink them all, so it should be good now. MBisanz talk 21:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Death of Marvin Schur
Hi, could you please explain your decision on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Marvin Schur? I am quite astounded at this outcome. Are you saying that the article is notable, but merely needs a change in title? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- The article Death of Marvin Schur was clearly determined not to be notable, but there were comments indicating content had been merged and split, etc, so to err on the side of GFDL caution, redirecting was a cheap solution, the discussion did not express any view on Marvin Schur, although it looks to me like a weak article. MBisanz talk 23:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I just discovered that User:Grockl has edited the archive of their sockpuppet report. I believe that this (along with this selective talk page cleanup) is in response to my warning to the user. Could you have a quick look and see if there is anything that needs doing? Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
File:1999 west nile map.jpg
The constant need to relicense, redescribe, re-whatever images every 6 months or so to save them from the newest rule change of the deletionists is why I, although an admin, here never bother to upload images I create anymore. Rmhermen (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Image query
Hello, it appears that you edited this image File:Young Love Issue 1 (Crestwood-Prize).jpg, which I uploaded. Although I recall uploading it, the History page doesn't list me at all. I'm happy to add the description required, but remain bemused about how it disappeared - I recall creating it, and can see the remnants of it on the description page. Any idea what happened, and how to recover the initial text rather than having me re-create it, please? ntnon (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Seeing this comment, I had to look at the image. Ntnon, my best guess is that the license tag and all went into the edit summary when you uploaded the image. So, you show in the history of the image upload, but not the text description page that goes with it. I've added as much of the original text that was visible in the image upload summary. —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Gillian Hiscott deletion 17/0/2009
Hello, I note you instigated the deletion of the article about myself and wonder if you can further assist with advice.
Although I understand that being the partner of a print firm is irrelevant as far as notability is concerned, and that The Library Theatre is unimportant, The article was initially created in order to provide general information on me, as a playwright, for professional individuals who work with me in the theatre industry, and always look up everyone else on a team. I have no great knowledge on what is required, nor the patience to learn and no doubt worded things wrongly. However it has been there for over a year and some administrators had kindly contributed to get it in better shape.
I understood, that authors have a placing on the site, so long as they are not self published, or published by vanity publishers. I have plays published with play publishers Cressrelles and Jasper Publishing who are not in the least connected to me in business nor vanity publishers . A few of these are adaptations of classic novels which have been used by professional companies. Therefore companies who are considering performing the plays may wish to look me up, as did recently a professional theatre in Budapest who are currently adapting one of my plays for performance.
I have a novel published by small publishing company Seventh Wave Publiscations, which was initially in the top 20s list for it’s genre (fiction WW2) by major British book retailer Waterstones. It’s dropped down the list a little because there aren’t any left. There is shortly to be a re-print and re-sales of the first edition are at on sale at Amazon, they range from $30 – 60
I hae plays published by theatre play publishers who are nothing to do with me businesswise, nor vanity publishers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillhiscott (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I need to preserve a reputation on the internet. Maybe a simple list of my publications would be acceptable, but cannot risk re-creating the article if administrators automatically believe it should be deleted. I feel a little hard done by as people with less achievements still have articles.
Any further opinion or advice? Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillhiscott (talk • contribs) 19:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I really cannot see a way Wikipedia could host a list of publications, because Wikipedia only reports things covered in other sources. You might ask the people who participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Hiscott is they have any suggestions, but my best suggestion would be the Publishing Wiki. MBisanz talk 22:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You're invited!
 New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Since I closed this after you relisted it, I thought I'd tell you why. One "delete" voter who later stated redirecting might be a good idea. A few solid "keeps" and a strong rationale for a redirect. Therefore, I found a way to "split the baby". I closed as "redirect" but check out the closing statement. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
RfA Request
Hi there! I'm honoured that you think I'm qualified to become an administrator, but I really have no desire to become one - I just like making content on wiki. Thanks anyway! Skinny87 (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Note on my talk page
Thanks for the note on my talk page. I've added a comment there (did you notice it was a block from nearly two years ago?). If you notice anything like that in future, could you direct it to the arb-l mailing list (or unblock-en-l), and not to me personally? I'll only end up forwarding it on. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Will do. Didn't see it was so old, weird. MBisanz talk 01:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. BTW, did you see my note on the talk page of that subpage of yours? Carcharoth (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Recent deletion
Ugh. I really didn't see this coming so I failed to make a backup. Is there any chance you could just dump and userfy both the article and its talk page to user talk:Sillyfolkboy/sandbox? Don't worry, I'm not looking to recreate the article, but I think some of the writing and sources would help to write the new article "Islamic radicalism in the United Kingdom". I'm sure if you look at my last edits in the deleted history, and the page at time of deletion, then you can see I was pushing in that direction anyway.
Many users stated that the above, or similar, would be a much more neutral title. Indeed, many of the sources and academic studies directly focused on this issue rather than just British Pakistanis. I can guarantee that when I get around to writing I won't cherry pick bits from the article as was done previously. Thanks in advance. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- There was already stuff in your sandbox, so I moved it to User:Sillyfolkboy/sandbox1. MBisanz talk 22:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking of taking this to DRV. See [12] - with the evidence about the Spanish Heraldry Society, it looks as though what we have is an incestuous group of 'confraternities' and people, with no notability. I also see that a keep vote was from an account set up just for that purpose. Any comments? dougweller (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, I did catch the SPA comment when reviewing it, but weighing the points made by established editors like DGG pushed it to an NC. It did have an iffy feeling though when closing (I would have commented to delete if I wasn't closing), so I wouldn't a DRV. MBisanz talk 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was tired last night (in fact got out of bed to write the above), but looking at WP:DRV and the box with 4 points, it appears that DRV wouldn't apply right now. I guess what I need to do is to follow point one and ask you to review your decision and consider reversing it. Then if you don't, point 3 is about a deleted article, 4 is ANI which would be silly, and I'm not at all sure about 2. I guess a new AfD is a possibility, I really am not sure about the correct process right now. I'm out most of today anyway so won't get around to this until Monday now I think, any advice would be welcome.Thanks. dougweller (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well from my past experience, I would say the best thing to do is file a DRV citing the SPA and sourcing issues. I've found that second AFDs usually are rejected and you have fulfilled the "talking with deleting admin" part, so you are clear to go on that requirement. MBisanz talk 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 22. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well from my past experience, I would say the best thing to do is file a DRV citing the SPA and sourcing issues. I've found that second AFDs usually are rejected and you have fulfilled the "talking with deleting admin" part, so you are clear to go on that requirement. MBisanz talk 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was tired last night (in fact got out of bed to write the above), but looking at WP:DRV and the box with 4 points, it appears that DRV wouldn't apply right now. I guess what I need to do is to follow point one and ask you to review your decision and consider reversing it. Then if you don't, point 3 is about a deleted article, 4 is ANI which would be silly, and I'm not at all sure about 2. I guess a new AfD is a possibility, I really am not sure about the correct process right now. I'm out most of today anyway so won't get around to this until Monday now I think, any advice would be welcome.Thanks. dougweller (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised that you closed this as merge to Rachel Corrie#Reactions.
Firstly, there is no consensus at all that this is the right action (not even a majority of "votes"). Secondly, trying to merge it back in the RC article is an obvious non-starter, for all the reasons discussed on that article's talk page - above all, it is far too long to be merged back.
I am wondering whether you might have misread some of the later contributions, which suggested merging into a separate article Public Reaction to the Death of Rachel Corrie (or similar title) which would allow a wider scope and remove the problem of perceived bias in an "Artistic Tributes" only article. That would have my support, and I think is the course which most contributors there would support.
--NSH001 (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Votes counted how the result is merge to Rachel Corrie#reactions is decided
- 5 direct keep
- 2 merge to reactions to rachel corrie seperate page
- 3 delete and merge to rachel corrie
- Also some other dedicated pages editors from various opinions hasn't voted yet, but they expressed their opinions on creation of seperate page earlier in talk page so there were a consensus.
I also want an explanation on how you decided after voting The general consensus was either keep or merge artistic tributes on a seperate General Reactions to Rachel Corrie page. Also the delete voters arguments were wrong since there are various other artistic tributes pages in wikipedia. Also no NPOV is an issue since the page has no unneutral side. Kasaalan (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll let MBisanz answer for himself, but I'll point out to both of you that AfD is not a vote, nor is a !vote, so majorities and vote counting are irrelevant. I'll also point out to Kasaalan that "the delete voters arguments were wrong since there are various other artistic tributes pages in wikipedia" is classic WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also why you chose a swearing word on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is your issue most possibly but not polite. First of all, this is not othercasesexist argument, since some users voted for delete claiming no other page exist, but I proved there are other. Also they claimed the page is a fork, but I don't know any guideline like fork, I again proved there were other similar manner articles, because they are fit to wikipedia guidelines. Yet your otherpageexist guideline also not fit well because my arguments not solely based on otherpagesexist, yet it was just an answer to false claims of delete voters. So either provide me a reason to delete the article or show me a page to complaint for changing the judgement since it is completely wrong. Without consulting the dedicated editors of the page and against their will deletion and merging into main article is wrong. Kasaalan (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- By the way the delete voters claims were the ones you mention in the guideline, so again I demand an explanation for the judgement with proper guidelines referring to them. None users explained how the judgement took place or why exactly the discussion is closed. If our opinions doesn't matter why there is a discussion page for deletion.
- Also some other dedicated pages editors from various opinions hasn't voted yet, but they expressed their opinions on creation of seperate page earlier in talk page so there were a consensus. Kasaalan (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dweller is right that AFD is not a vote. It is based on arguments about policy. In this case the arguments that this article was a POV-fork that violated NPOV, the core principle of Wikipedia, were more convincing than the arguments citing a talk page discussion to split and the existence of similar pages elsewhere. You can appeal this deletion at WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz talk 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
A Clear Answer to False Fork arguments "What Forking is and What Forking is not" Wikipedia:Content forking
- What forking is
- Forking can be unintentional or intentional. POV forks usually arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.
- What content/POV forking is not
- There are some things that may occur from time to time that may be mistaken for content forking, when that is not necessarily the case. Some of them are listed here. Please note that meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not mean that something is not a content fork -- only that it is not necessarily a content fork.
- Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles
- Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.
- Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.
- Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.
- However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinout [[Criticism of XYZ]]. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.
- I don't think you have read all of the forking concept or you wouldn't misjudge like this. It is about policies but the article not violating any policies in real term. First of all if you say the article is POV-fork you are simply wrong. This is what POV fork is. I didn't create the page for any disagreement. On the controversy I created the article on agreement from opposing view editors consent. I created the consensus on main page therefore I cerated the article, this is simple as that. Neither editor liked too much info on main page including me so we decided some seperate titles needed for some sections Also the page is not violating NPOV in any way, since this is a fact article which I collect the artistic tributes to Rachel Corrie, and I am not excluding any view or else. Kasaalan (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dweller is indeed right that AfD is not a vote. It does very much look to me, however, that you have not read, or have misread, the later contributions to the AfD, who were suggesting a merge of this article into a new article with wider scope, as I pointed out above. There was an obvious consensus developing that this was a course that would satisfy all, or nearly all of the participants, and avoids any question of a POV-fork (although I don't think it is one, I can see it might appear so to someone unfamiliar with the article history). I would rather not have to take this to DR when there is such an obvious solution available, so am offering you an opportunity to reconsider. --NSH001 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- A heavy majority on the votes decided at least keep the page as a seperated public reaction to rachel corrie article page and only 3 opinions were to delete the article if you count yourself 4. Yet none of the delete voters has contributed to the main Rachel Corrie article at least for months, and not sure even if they read our discussions on the archive pages. I would like to add documentaries and political reactions and made a reaction page. Yet an artistic tributes page alone is just fine according to the wikipedia guidelines, if you think otherwise first you should prove it in some sound terms. Kasaalan (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't even know who this person is, so I don't have an opinion as to what should happen to the article, I just interpret and close the AFD. If you disagree with the closing result of no article at the title specified in the AFD, you would need to go to WP:DRV. MBisanz talk 00:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The bot did something I am not sure I understand. No gripe about it, just curiosity.
Long ago, I drew some military rank insignia and gave them to WP. One of these pictures was File:USAirF.insignia.e9cmsaf.afmil.png. It appears that on 19 March 2009 the bot resubmitted the picture under the different filename File:USAirF.insignia.e9cmsaf.afm.png. On 21 March 2009, two days later, it contacted me to tell me to update the licensing information on this new version. The original had that information.
Not that it matters. There is a much better SVG version available. My original should probably be deleted anyway. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 13:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, we can keep the duplicate with the license, since some people prefer PNGs to SVGs, we will just get rid of the duplicate copy without the license info, darn system errors. MBisanz talk 21:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Your kind nomination...
... came as a great surprise. Thank you for the vote of confidence and for your nice words (though I have 0 Huggle edits!). The extra flags would be useful for various things that I pester kindly Admins for now. I'm not really sure that I would pass an RFA. I'm pretty much a niche editor and they tend to do poorly at RFA. If you still think it's worth a try - can we hold the nomination for a couple of days? I have a couple of delayed projects to finish off, some userpage re-organising to do and a busy couple of days coming up at work to boot. Cheers, (and thanks again) Paxse (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello MBisanz. I missed the above discussion, and have multiple reliable sources that verify notability from; Yale Daily News, KTUU-TV, Anchorage Daily News, The Boston Globe and others as proof. As you closed this debate, what do you suggest? Should I take this to deletion review? May I have it userfied? I would appreciate any advice. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I userfied it to User:Ism schism/Verne E. Rupright, add the sources, etc then run it through WP:DRV. MBisanz talk 22:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I appreciate the chance to work on the article, and bring it up to standard. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Image problems
You appear to have created a number of description pages for images that don't exist, such as File:Hebb bobby\\x7e sunny\\x7e\\x7e\\x7e\\x7e 101b.jpg and File:Coat of Arms of Székesfehérvár.jpg. Are you using some tool that's having trouble with Unicode filenames? --Carnildo (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, MZM pointed that out to me a couple days ago that my browser was set to the wrong font setting, I've fixed it going forward, and since all of those are deletion taggings, it should fix itself in a few days. MBisanz talk 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Imge duplication
Sorry to disturb you here. Can this image below on english wikipedia be deleted:
Its a duplicate of this image here that is being used on Wikipedia and which I transferred to Commons: File:Buddhist Temple at Maheshkhali Island.jpg
Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
User:MBisanz/PP
FYI, the cascading protection on User:MBisanz/PP protects the following templates which would not otherwise be protected:
- Template:ACE 2008 guides
- Template:Bureaucrat2
- Template:FA-icon
- Template:Formeradmin
- Template:Green
- Template:NoSpam
- Template:NoSpamEmail
- Template:RFARlinks
- Template:Rfarlinks
- Template:Section
Also, the talk page is protected from creation. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
FUZE Meeting
Hi MB, I checked today and saw that you deleted the article FUZE Meeting. I do not understand what was non neutral about the article. Can you please help me get the article back on Wikipedia and modify it so that it fits Wikipedia norm instead of simply deleting it.
Thank you. ~FabulosWorld
Message moved from the top of the page
I DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO WRITE YOU SO I AM SURE YOU RECEIVE IT. i AM NOT VERY GOOD WITH WIKI, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN I AM IGNORANT IN MY FIELD OF STUDIES. WHY DID YOU DELETE "VENETIAN PEOPLE" ARTICLE? THE PEOPLE IN VENETIA HAVE A LANGUAGE, A 3000 YEARS HISTORY, AND ALSO PRESENT LEGAL STATUS. THE SCOTTISH, THE CATALAN, THE BASQUE... HAVE MUCH LESS THAN VENETIAN, BUT YOU DO NOT DELETE THEM. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING PERSONAL AGAINST VENETIAN? DO YOU IGNORE HISTORY AND PRESENT SITUATION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffaeleserafini (talk • contribs) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, Raffaeleserafini, I took a look at that AFD discussion for this article. The people were saying the article need references for research and a neutral point of view, because Wikipedia has strict policies when it comes to POV and Original Research (neither are allowed in the enyclopedia). Please don't make assumptions into motivations of editors. (Sorry to intrude on your talk page, MBisanz, I just felt like commenting - feel free to remove if you mind).Spring12 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Spring, feel free to comment anytime. My grandmother was Italian so I have no animus to the Italian people. But at a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venetian people, the Wikipedia community found the article should be deleted for the reasons Spring cites above. I was just the administrator closing the discussion. The deletion can be appealed at WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz talk 22:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for FUZE Meeting
An editor has asked for a deletion review of FUZE Meeting. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There was a lot of vandalism on the pages and that could be one reason why they were temporarily in an abandoned state. But they were not in an abandoned state. The article, even now, carries links to them . Could they somehow be recovered? White adept (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion to recover the article is at deletion review. MBisanz talk 05:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Images moves
Hi .. It seems there is some issue with these file moves you made - could you please look into the issue.. [13][14][15][16]. White adept (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Taking a quick glance, I see the edit before my move was
- # (diff) 05:34, March 16, 2009 . . BJBot (talk | contribs | block) (1,657 bytes) (BJBot, orphaned fair use image tagging)
- So I think it is the case that I moved an image tagged for deletion that was later deleted. MBisanz talk 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
: 23 March 2009
- From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
- Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
- News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Venetian People page
Dear MBisanz,
I just read the beginning of your deletion log for Venetian People. I imagine that you had other reasons in the rest of the text, but I need to correct you on the first statement. A Venetian ethnic group does indeed exist.
The following link has the Articles of Regione Veneto's Statute. This is an official law of the Italian Republic. It states "il popolo veneto" (Venetian People). Within the Italian Republic, only Sardinian and Venetians have the status of people (even though I personally believe that others should as well). This is not trivial, because according to international law, a people has rights of self-determination and protection. This is only what has been recognized by the Italian government. Here is the link: http://www.consiglioveneto.it/crvportal/leggi/1971/71ls0340.html#Heading14
Then, as far as publications goes, the following is a book on European ethnic groups that clearly lists and describes (even somantically) Venetians: "i popoli della terra", Tom Stacey, vol. 18, pp. 130-133, Mondatori editore, 1972. I believe this is the link to the English version, but I am not sure because it has only 144 pages, while the Italian publication I am referring to has 20 volumes. Anyway, here is the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=EnQ7AAAACAAJ&dq="peoples+of+the+world"+"tom+stacey".
Finally, even without official legal and bibliographical evidence, I find it very strong to state that an ethnic group does not exist. Especially in the case of a people who has an internationally recognized language, with dictionaries and literature. A people who had their own country for 1100 years. An ethnic group does not disappear in 150 years (6 generations), especially of this size.
Please reconsider your deletion. If 99% of the content was not wikipedia worthy, I am fine with your decision, but deleting Venetians as a whole, as an ethnic group, is not appropriate.
Thank you,
Bolivendarsen (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Just discovered this and wondered why, if the there were far more delete votes than merge or keep votes, the decision was to merge. I would've voted delete, BTW, as I seem to recall lists of majors as being unencyclopedic and serving little purpose besides advertisement (the only exceptions being particularly notable programmes found in reliable, third-party sources per WP:UNIGUIDE). --Aepoutre (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well there isn't a requirement on how much must be merged, so it could be very little or everything. Merge is a nice way to compromise discussions like that so all parties are happy and can decide on the specific content worth including in the main article on their own. MBisanz talk 07:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Haha, I see. To your knowledge, however, am I correct in saying that a list of majors is unencyclopedic? I was curious about the discussion, for sure, but it's brought up this larger encyclopedic vs. unencyclopedic issue for me. --Aepoutre (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Some users from this IP address are currently blocked?
In particular the user:hobojaks has been unfairly blocked.
In addition hobojaks has claimed the right to vanish. Do you think we could all agree that the discussion would be improved if comments could be made from this IP address. The user or users typing from this IP address is entirely capable of going to a public library and getting a new account, but doing something wrong to prove a point is generally not such a good idea.
The user or users typing from this IP address maintain that hobojaks no longer exists, and invoke not only the rule that users have the right to vanish, but also the ignore all rules rule when it comes to participating in discussion of the present deletion argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.171.210 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi - could you take a look at this and see if it's any different to the one you deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Sheehan (entertainment journalist)? I don't know what to tag it with but I think it needs something! pablohablo. 20:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Are these the same image?
Could you check if File:X-Chat Logo.png (deleted) is the same as File:Logo xchat.png (commons)? Tothwolf (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The background shading is slightly different, but otherwise it is the same image. MBisanz talk 01:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, good deal. The deleted image was a free image but the one from commons will work fine for the XChat article and the other places the original had been used. Also, could you see if there was anything on the category page for Category:Wikipedians who use XChat? Its easy enough to recreate but I just wondered if it has been set up the way the others were. Thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD close
Since I supported deletion I'm obviously happy with the way you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama. As someone who has closed a few controversial AfD's in the past, however, I'm wondering if you might consider offering a bit of a rationale rather than simply saying "delete." Taking the latter route is hardly the end of the world or anything, but I think it might be useful for folks on the "keep" side (and indeed on the delete or merge side) to know why you made the decision. In part it's just a matter of fairness - there were a number of keep and merge !voters who made reasonable arguments - but also given the incredibly contentious nature of almost every Barack Obama-related article an exposition of your rationale might serve as something to point to when future conflicts/articles like these come up.
This is obviously just a friendly suggestion on my part - ain't no thing if you decide to leave it as is.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Expanded per request. MBisanz talk 04:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Could you please usefy this article? Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done at User:A Nobody/List of controversial non-fiction books MBisanz talk 04:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. By the way, could you please also transwiki List of controversial non-fiction books to wikia:list:List of controversial non-fiction books? I just noticed the list wiki today! :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
transwiki request
Hello! Would you be so kind as to transwiki Hitman weapons to wikia:annex:Hitman weapons? Sorry if it's too many requests at once, I just been going through some discussions to see if they're worwthile putting anywhere. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin at wikia:annex, so I can't do imports there, so I don't know how it can be transwikied there. MBisanz talk 22:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD close: Herb usage
Hi, regarding the above, since forking is the issue, would it be acceptable to merge the deleted contents with existing articles, such as Herbalism? Cottonball (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Best suggestion is to edit the existing articles to include the sources and content that is missing. Weaving new content with existing content produces an easier to read article. MBisanz talk 05:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestion. But i am surprised that the articles were deleted suddenly. Is it true that discussions need to cease for a week before deletion takes place? Cottonball (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The process is that a deletion discussion is open for comments for five days and then is closed by an uninvolved administrator. MBisanz talk 07:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Incidentally, i've just republished all the pages in Google. i guess i will not be able to put them up again in Wikipedia. Cottonball (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The process is that a deletion discussion is open for comments for five days and then is closed by an uninvolved administrator. MBisanz talk 07:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestion. But i am surprised that the articles were deleted suddenly. Is it true that discussions need to cease for a week before deletion takes place? Cottonball (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, MBisanz. In a related question to this AfD closure, I wondered what you would suggest for the remaining articles that weren't (but should have been) part of this AfD nomination? See here. Is the best course of action a new AfD nom for these? Thanks, Rkitko (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well 2 more AFDs (one on TCM and one on the other articles), might work, or maybe work with Cottonball on merging the content to other articles. MBisanz talk 20:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your fair comments, MBisanz. The stated reasons for delete are forking and synthesis. It appears rather straightfoward to address these concerns. To address the SYN reason, we can simply take out all my comments from the articles, while leaving the verifiable citations intact. To address FORK, we can put the deleted articles as sub-articles of existing articles. If we do that, my immediate concern will be that the WP:WALL charge will be levied against the main article in order to delete all related articles, as has been done with Herb usage [17]. That will be sad, and that is why i am reluctant to do a MERGE. Cottonball (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Following a recent discussion at the newly created Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion, I would like to request userfication of the deleted articles Killing Yourself to Live, After Forever (song) and Solitude (song) (AfD available here). There seems to be general consensus at MRfD that this content is better merged than deleted, and I would like the opportunity to see if there is any content that should be merged. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I had already userfied one to User:Lykantrop/After Forever (song), I restored the history of Killing Yourself to Live so it is there, and seeing as User:Black Kite was the one who closed the third AFD, I would suggest you ask him for a copy. Also, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the MRfD process since 1. there isn't an admin closing it, 2. I do not see any community discussion on the process and right now it looks like an attempt to circumvent AFD by changing the make-up of the group contributing to the discussions. Have you thought of starting a process RFC to get consensus for it? MBisanz talk 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing is a process until people get involved. And in a certain sense, yes, I am trying to circumvent AfD; in the sense that with certain kinds of issues, people shouldn't have to use AfD at all. AfD is not the only solution, and I would like to see far less articles show up there when a merge type discussion can do a better job. It just so happened the first trial discussion was about a previous AfD, but future discussion will involve articles before they show up at AfD, if they ever do. My hopes is that MRfD can replace certain dysfunctional, destructive and polarizing aspects of AfD with a more leveled discussion. But yes, an RfC sounds like a great idea. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion got started in a similar manner. (Uh oh, my gray hair is showing...) /me puts away the broom and gets out a shovel...
2002-05-15 – 2004-05-28
2004-05-28 – 2004-09-20
2004-07-14 – 2004-07-16
2004-06-16 (leftover redirect?)
2004-06-16 – current
--Tothwolf (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion got started in a similar manner. (Uh oh, my gray hair is showing...) /me puts away the broom and gets out a shovel...
- Hehe. Gray hair and all. MBisanz talk 07:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, when I look at RFD, it looks completely functional. The oldest link is from two weeks ago, and there seems to be a steady stream of discussion to make finding consensus viable. Maybe you are comparing it to AfD in terms of traffic, in which case, yeah, it's the backwaters for sure. I think that's because AfDeletion seems like more fun to people than RfDiscussion. People like to delete things, it makes them feel like big people making a big impact. I, and others like me, like doing little things that make a big impact in a small way. I don't think a lack of traffic would be a reason not to get things running.
- And as a side note, I've written a more detailed rational on the policy village pump, and I'd be totally stoked if y'all'd do some discussin' there. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just realized I left out the oldest link: 2001-11-06 – 2002-05-14 --Tothwolf (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Request
Aloha, MBisanz. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind userfying the recently deleted Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama as I requested in my statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama. Please let me know (on this page) if this isn't doable. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well I moved it to User:Ali'i/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama while Dfly was typing, but as there were serious concerns at AFD, it will need to go to DRV before being mainspaced again. MBisanz talk 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, obviously. I want it more for the salvagable info for use elsewhere, rather than back into mainspace. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
IRC
When you have a moment, if you can log back onto irc I'd like to discuss something with you. Synergy 16:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Image:White noise spectrum.png
21 March 2009
(diff) (hist) . . Colors of noise; 01:13 . . (+54) . . MBisanz (talk | contribs) (Tagging Image:White noise spectrum.png which is up for deletion per CSD (TW))
I think the problem with this image has been corrected (see its talk page). It looks ok to me, flat in linear space. On Colors of noise, it's the pink noise graph that looks like it's still wrong: it should be flat in log space but isn't. Was there some other reason why you tagged it for CSD? Cheers. Quaestor23 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The issue I had with the image is that it doesn't have a license saying what terms it is uploaded under. This is because there was a fault in the system in 2006 that let some images be uploaded without description pages. MBisanz talk 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is for not pushing "refresh" before script closing this AFD :)
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Userbox template migration
Who should move userboxes to userspace? I uncovered {{User no IRC}} while fixing a number of broken boxes and it doesn't look like something that should be in the Template: namespace. It doesn't appear to be in use but I guess the polite thing to do would be to move it to a subpage of the original author vs sending it to TfD. Tothwolf (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, it is ok, the leading "User_" signifies that even though it is in the Template: namespace, it isn't a template for content. MBisanz talk 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I meant per Wikipedia:Userbox migration due to it being negative/derogatory (not that I exactly agree with everything in the userbox migration solution, but if it was passed it should be applied fairly). Tothwolf (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose ask the person who created it, since he is still active at Special:Contributions/Ghirlandajo. MBisanz talk 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I meant per Wikipedia:Userbox migration due to it being negative/derogatory (not that I exactly agree with everything in the userbox migration solution, but if it was passed it should be applied fairly). Tothwolf (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect decisions at AfD
Hi there. I was just seeking some clarification on a couple of points. If an AfD is closed as a merge to something, who has responsibility for actually carrying out the merge? I'm presuming it's not the admin, but does it fall to the nominator, or just the general community? The same for redirects, though they at least are a quick job that the closing admin could do. --GedUK 08:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Merging and redirecting is the responsibility of the general community. My closing script automatically does it for the redirect closes (you might call it an extreme merge). But merging usually involves deciding on what content to keep and what content to cut, which is best left to those involved in the topic field, so the closing admin doesn't usually get involved. MBisanz talk 08:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The closing script tags the articles to be merged, which puts them in an appropriate "to be merged" category (I asked MBisanz about this 2 weeks ago). On the general topic, there is a recent discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 62#Rethinking AfD practice of Merge defaulting to Keep. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Surely some mistake?
Okay, so what I know is that JC closed this debate as delete; then a couple of minutes later you relisted it. I wish I knew whether it was deliberate or not, but I don't, so I thought I'd ping you to find out. Hope you don't mind / sorry for wasting your time. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was likely not deliberate. One of the shortcomings of the Mr-Z man AFD closing script is that it doesn't check to see if an AFD is already closed before closing/relisting it. This sometimes leads to double closes/relists from 2 editors using the script. I already advised MBisanz that it's always a good idea to hit the browser's "refresh" key before closing, especially if the tab has been open for some time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, what Ron said, stupid javascript. MBisanz talk 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thank you for yourmessage i will read as many of these articles as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanity99 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Fall Creek, Houston / Humble
Hi, you deleted my page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_Creek,_Houston_/_Humble&action=edit&redlink=1 . I agree that I am completely new to wikipedia and the article was removed due to lack of additional sources, even some said that the neighborhood doesn't exist. This is not true. Here are some sources http://www.fallcreekhouston.com/ , http://www.har.com/masterplanned/dispProfile.cfm?commid=12 . That is my first page and yes, I don't know what I'm doing just yet, but now I don't even have anything I put there. Can you un-delete? This is all very confusing to me. It took me 10min to figure out how to "talk" here. I hope I'm doing the right thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmatwill (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
your opinion please...
Greetings - I hope that I am proceeding in the proper fashion (if not, I apologize up front). As the creator of the recently deleted 'Agent Moosehead' page, I would like to object, and inquire as to your decision regarding this matter.
Currently, Agent Moosehead is Deli Magazine's: Philadelphia Artist of the Month! In the past several months, AM has been sited in numurous media sources including interviews, reviews & more. Some of these include (but are not limited to):
http://www.thedelimagazine.com/philadelphia (just look at the top of the page - but prior to April 2nd if possible). There is a large banner that is hard to miss.
Below AM's prominently featured banner, you will see two stories pertaing to the band (one, an interviewe with AM guitarist Chris Dippolito, and one a featured story regarding a recent performance). You may need to scroll down or visit "page 2" by the time you check.
Aside from this, many of the older links that were provided WERE in fact valid, and were not properly acknowledged in the "history" section of the notes. Some of these include:
http://www.uwishunu.com/2009/03/09/lucky-old-souls-music-picks-of-the-week-14/ http://www.origivation.com/issues/origiVation_2007.11.pdf https://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/articles/16424/music--live-music
Here are links to sites that quote an individual members of Agent Moosehead (there are others like it that I cannot locate): http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2007/12/06/culture-shock http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2007/12/20/culture-shock
Or what about this press mention: http://www.imprintmagazine.org/life/new_yorks_harvest_fair_rallies_through_hot_jams_and_cold_weather
In the "history details" regarding the decision to delete this page, someone sites an article or blog alledegly "written by the bassist." I would like to request verification of this particular link, as I am aware of all media related contacts for this and all other members.
Perhaps this particular mention was in reference to the request that was made by one of the Philadelphia City Paper writers asking for his (and other band members) opinion for their "culture shock" section (a section which tagline reads - ironically: "Things That Matter To People Who Matter."
Even a simple "google search" will lead to pages of validation pertaining to the significance of this band - including legitimate and sourced press quotes (non-self published sources).
Finally, I ask you to visit the following wikipedia page for an additional, previously approved reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philly_Sound_Clash
Any information that you could provide is appreciated!
Thank you! - John
- John, there was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agent Moosehead where people found the article should be deleted for lack of coverage in reliable sources. Press coverage is different from mentions in articles. My decision can be appealed at WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz talk 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for the quick review and response, MBisanz. I will follow the proper protcol to appeal this decision and have the content re-evaluated (though I may have questions in the process). Thank you once again!
- John
Anthill assistance
I think I stepped in an anthill while working through my todo list when I started fixing the userboxes/categories the other day and I could use some assistance.
There had previously been an upmerge proposal for three of the categories (info here) and I thought it had already been dealt with but I can't find any further discussion now. At the time of the CfD, there were only a handful of users in these categories due to the removal of the category code from the userboxes:
Category:Wikipedians who use IRC
Category:Wikipedians who use irssi
Category:Wikipedians who use mIRC
And Category:Wikipedians who use XChat is the one I asked you about yesterday that had been deleted even before this CfD because it was empty due to the userbox category code removal.
When some rapid fire editing rolled in tonight, discussion ended up scattered across 3 talk pages: Killiondude, ABCD, and Black Falcon.
Black Falcon suggested talking to MZMcBride but I don't believe I've ever had any interaction with MZMcBride and I didn't want to just show up and drop a broken antfarm on his desk talk page unannounced either :)
--Tothwolf (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I have no idea how to address that, what are you looking for as an end result. MBisanz talk 08:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Me either. At the time of the CfD the categories were pretty much empty (even Category:Wikipedians who use IRC) because most people didn't manually add categories to their userpages. Most of the users that were left were due to subst userboxes. Ideally I'd like to keep the categories as they are now because they are nowhere near empty now (and merging them together would mean ~250+ users in Category:Wikipedians who use IRC). I tried to clean it all up and make it easy to use and I think I was successful, but then someone pulled some stuff out of an old backlog... Tothwolf (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I also noticed the CfD was open much longer than normal. TBH, I'm not sure its wise for people to start (semi-)automated edits on backlogs this old as this can't be the only one where things have changed drastically in 3+ months. Tothwolf (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fun stuff. I'm waiting to see what MZMcBride wants to do. Considering how the UCfD for these went (one nom vote to delete and one additional vote) and considering the further discussion on Black Falcon's talk page, I figure it has a better than average chance at DRV, if it comes down to that. Not like this would be a first or anything... Tothwolf (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please reconsider your close of this matter. Points to note are:
- The rough score was 7 Keeps, 2 Merges and 9 Deletes which indicates no consensus.
- The deletes included an influential opinion from Clay Collier of Delete. This may have been made in good faith but was, in fact, misstated as he has now recreated the article using material from the deleted article such as the title and a sourced sentence which I wrote. The effect of his action seems contrary to WP:OWN and WP:HONEST. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
--Jzguzlowski (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the welcome, Matthew.
John
- FYI: There is an ANI thread concerning the recreation of this article: WP:ANI#Second opinion needed about recreation of deleted material. Aleta Sing 16:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
List of Everex Products
Just an administrative note on List of Everex Products. The article creator placed a {{hangon}} tag on the article after you prodded it, with a reason of "Everex Article Is Notable; This was a split; If necessary merge into original article". I assume they meant to contest the prod, so I removed both the prod tag and hangon tag. Just a heads up so you can decide where you want to go from here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, AFD'. MBisanz talk 21:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh. The sad thing is, this would be pretty nice to have if it had all the information from the original Everex company (before they went bankrupt). They used to make some really nice hardware that was unlike the offerings from the clone makers at of the day. I believe I still have some of the manuals filed away, but I'm not sure if they'd qualify as a RS. Tothwolf (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
David Edward Reid
I cannot begin to understand why you have listed the Chairman of Tesco, the UK's largest supermarket, for deletion. Over the years I have tried to use Wikipedia to spead a bit of light on Britain's largest companies and its top Executives - surely this is what Wikipedia is for. Please can you explain what you had in mind? Dormskirk (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia requires that articles have notable coverage in reliable sources. Generally, the executive of a large corporation is not notable for only being the executive of a large corporation, they must have done something else that warrants coverage independent of the company to be considered notable. MBisanz talk 23:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Where in Wikipedia's policies does it state that "the executive of a large corporation is not notable for only being the executive of a large corporation, they must have done something else that warrants coverage independent of the company to be considered notable"? Dormskirk (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria, he needs coverage about him as an individual person. MBisanz talk 23:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Where in Wikipedia's policies does it state that "the executive of a large corporation is not notable for only being the executive of a large corporation, they must have done something else that warrants coverage independent of the company to be considered notable"? Dormskirk (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Now hold on, that discussion was a bunch of socks agreeing with each other! That's no consensus! Please restore and relist or whatever's the procedure to restore deleted articles. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- But no one was supporting retention of the article. Thefromspace and OlYeller21 aren't socks and supported deletion, and no one, not even you, were supporting retention. MBisanz talk 01:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Remove the socks and you have two persons supporting this. Calling this consensus is an affront to discussion., especially considering this was listed under "sports" rather than arts or biography. I'm not attached to the article, whether it is deleted in the end matters little to me, but the nominator him/herself is a sock which disruptively nominated the article for deletion (or at the very lest, a user who registered to delete the article).Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, actually, under current AFD levels of participation, 2 comments + a nom actually result in deletion after 10 days now. I've whined on AN that we need more people commenting, but given the strictures of WP:RELIST, second-relisting is strongly discouraged. MBisanz talk 02:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Close as no-consensus seems more appropriate.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for Buddhism and the body
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Buddhism and the body. 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. (went ahead and got this rolling per the discussion on the ANI page)Clay Collier (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of File:AsCoordClasp.png
A tag has been placed on File:AsCoordClasp.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image with an unknown source or an unknown copyright status which has been tagged as such for more than 7 days, and it still lacks the necessary information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Radiant chains (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
User Welcome
I just wanted to say hi and thanks for the nice welcome. It has encouraged me to do more on Wiki!
Asian lawyer (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
"Speedy keep" (non admin closure) question
Sorry to bother you, MBisanz, but I made a big mistake nominating the article Stephen Porter (director) for deletion and the consensus went all towards speedy keep. In order to make up my error, I attempted to close the discussion per Wikipedia:Speedy_keep (non admin-closure). The debate was on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Porter_(director), but I wanted to be sure I "closed" it correctly. Is it alright? Thanks for your time, Spring12 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- You messed it up a little, but it is no big deal, really. I fixed your action with a little script, so everything should be fine now. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Iranian football club chairmen
What on earth were you thinking about with these prod tags?[19][20][21][22][23] Would you do the same to articles about presidents of NFL teams? Or, in the case of Mostafa Makri, the equivalent of the president of the NFL itself? Shouldn't people who are trusted with adminship be encouraging editors to create articles about parts of the world that are grossly unrepresented in Wikipedia rather than slapping them down with deletion tags? I always try to assume good faith, but you are are really stretching that to the limit here. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- These weren't the managers or coaches of a team or with the exception of Mostafa Makri, the president of a league. Also, when I nommed Mostafa, the article barely asserted notability [24]. This makes these people the equivalent of any president of any large company in a country, and those are only notable it there are reliable sources on them. I've re-read Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria and even the stretch of WP:ATHLETE, but for most of those individuals I still see no coverage on them as an individual, just coverage on the athletic club that mentions them. I would say the same thing about the president of an NFL team that we must have sources to have an article and they must be about the individual, not just the team. Once you go beyond the playing field to the back-office, the inherent notability wanes considerably. MBisanz talk 23:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about any wikilawyering references to WP:ATHLETE or any other guideline, but just about plain old common sense. Anyone in this kind of position in a large country will pretty obviously attract coverage in reliable sources, and if they are in a country where the Latin script isn't used then these sources may not be easily found by web searches by someone who doesn't know the native script - although in all of these cases it only took a few seconds with Google to see that English language sources exist anyway. And anyway, if you want to get in to wikilawyering, one of these articles had already gone through AfD so I would expect an administrator to know that it wasn't eligible for prod deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.
Greetings back, MBisanz -
Thank you for the welcome message. Yes, I shall surely make plenty of errors in maneuvering through this Wiki-Labyrinth but the info you gave me so far is very interesting to me as well as (of course, you knew) helpful.
The list of “...tasks you can do” would surely keep us all busy for some time.
Again, thank you! --MrFyre (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
How does X work?
{{helpme}}
I've written and edited and annotated by article, but I can't seem to get it out of the sandbox and publish it. Please tell me what steps I need to take.
--Penultimatesiblings329 (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
I'm glad to see that the article in available now. I wasn't sure if there was a time lag or if I'd done something incorrectly. Am I correct in assuming that whatever you did was something I couldn't have done myself? Penultimatesiblings329 (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Got it!
Thanks again. Now I understand. I was assuming there were two different spaces. It was just the code that was holding things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penultimatesiblings329 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
ARRC page
Dear Mbisanz,
Hello, I'm new to wikipedia but need to know more specifically what should be changed to Atmospheric Radar Research Center to make it more notably and less biased. I've tried to tone it down a little and would hate to see the page removed so please let me know what else to change. Thanks, User:Rpalmerarrc
I've added some references/articles... can you please check and, if ok, remove the notability warnings? User:Rpalmerarrc —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC).
Hi Matt
Thanks for your patience. I'm ready to rock and roll at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Paxse if you'll show me what to do to make it live. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think I've managed it - let me know if I've screwed it up. Thanks again Paxse (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the afd result for this article is delete. I'm just wondering why it's still up. Thanks – Shannon Rose (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Respoonse to welcome to Wikipedia
Thank you!
I appreciate the welcome, and all of the helpful links you included!
I hope to contribute more in the future.
Madcomputerscientist (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
You're it
Except for you, all admins listed in Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log #Uninvolved admins are either inactive or on wikibreak right now. Just thought you'd like to know, as (after a long period of inactivity) an edit war broke out on Chiropractic in the last 24 hours or so. Is it time to recruit more admins? (Not that I was ever good at recruiting....) Eubulides (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not happy with that I see by Quack, Ludwig, and Levine, but it isn't quite bad enough to warrant admin intervention, if it goes on tomorrow, I'll probably step in. MBisanz talk 08:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Libby Booth Page
I am very new to wikipedia as well and hope I am doing this correctly.
A few weeks ago you helped to approve the deletion of an article I wrote on a local artist named Libby Booth.
Not only did this article take me a very long time to write (as I said, I am new to this), but I was quite annoyed that it was removed so quickly by simply "googling" her name to see if she is a notable artist.
Perhaps I am naive about how this sight works, and perhaps I need to explain my own credentials in writing this.
I am a history professor who has lived in the Central Michigan area for nearly 25 years. Booth is by far the best artist I have ever seen in all of this time, and in terms of her local notability, she is considered the top artist of the Michigan tri-city area and is hopefully going to be known nationally quite soon.
While her name may not produce many google hits, this is NO WAY reflects how popular or well known she is in this area.
Outside of publishing books, I have published over 20 professional encyclopedia articles and am well aware of who should or should not have documentation about their careers and life.
This whole evaluation and deleting process seems rather haphazard (perhaps it is not and I am naive about this format), but I would appreciate it if you could possibly remove this article from its current deleted status.
I would really like to contribute more to this site in the future, but this initial experience is leaving me very frustrated.
Any advice or comments?
Sincerely, Dr. Joel A. Lewis
Department of History Saginaw Valley State University —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redgramsci (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Question to an Administrator
Please, you deleted a page [25] whose the AFD discussion did not lead to a Consensus at the WP sense. Can you tell me in my talk page the reason of this decision?? Gentilal (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look...
...at this MfD. Also check my deletion log; the page was deleted three times under three different names. I am soliciting the opinion of others as well. Thanks! Frank | talk 15:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Premature AfD closure
Hello there, wondering if I could have a second opinion on something. I opened an AfD recently on a town which appeared to not be notable. The AfD was subsequently closed, before I (or anyone else) even had a chance to even rebut the argument of the person who closed it. I do not believe that the closure was supported by policy (at least any that I know of), and I think that others should be able to weigh in on it, as with any other AfD. Could you possibly re-list it so that it could at least be discussed? ←Spidern→ 17:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I recently made a similar mistake opening an AFD with a town: the current consensus is that all towns are inherently notable for Wikipedia, regardless of events occurring. Spring12 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- That seems to be the current consensus. There has been debate about this and an editor started a draft of a guideline for towns/cities/etc, although I'm not sure its needed or if many will be willing to accept yet another guideline. See: Wikipedia talk:Notability (populated places). Radio stations, Television stations, and roads have also been considered to be inherently notable, all of those being straightforward to verify via public records, etc. Tothwolf (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is somewhat against procedure to close an AFD before anyone has commented, and if you ask the closing editor, they generally should re-open it, but I would agree that the community feels all places are notable regardless of size. MBisanz talk 21:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of SkillStorm page
You recently deleted the article for "SkillStorm." I think that this is a useful piece that with improvement is Wiki-worthy. Is there any way to improve the article and have it re-instated?Adiaza2181 (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- There was a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkillStorm, please see WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz talk 21:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion! I just wanted to inform you: ==Deletion review for SkillStorm== An editor has asked for a deletion review of SkillStorm. 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. Adiaza2181 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Can I please have move privileges?
I would like to have the authority to change the order of sections within the article classical hamiltonian quaternions. I am sympathetic with the ideas of the people who did all the hard work on the article and have spent some time reading both elements of quaternions and lectures on quaterions.
ThanksQuaternionist (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone can edit any part of Wikipedia, so there are no special privileges required to edit or re-arrange an article, see WP:BOLD. MBisanz talk 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
hello
who do you think was the most confusing, sly, vandalizing sockpuppets you ever delt of, or heard of? Rick Tryker (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
oh, by the way, im not trying to set a record. see on my talk
RJ9 Handset diagram.png
Could you see about restoring File:RJ9 Handset diagram.png and getting it moved to commons? A SVG version was redrawn as File:RJ9 Handset diagram.svg which has been transfered to commons but from what I remember a file being redrawn as a SVG does not "obsolete" the original PNG and an orphaned CC licensed image isn't grounds for deletion. The deletion discussion was here. Tothwolf (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Restored, move her over. MBisanz talk 23:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Redeleted article
I had a question about a redeleted article at WT:AFD#Redeleted article. Since you conducted some of the actions mentioned in my query, would you care to respond there? Thanks. — AjaxSmack 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope you'll find that I addressed your concerns. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete, userfy, then merge
Hi. I've seen you field a couple "userfy with intent to merge" requests recently, so I hoped that you would have some thoughts on this issue. Feel free to refer me to the appropriate discussion page.
As described in WP:Merge and delete, all merged content must be properly attributed, with its history visible. My interpretation is that required source pages should live in article space whenever possible or rarely in Talk space. This is normally done by simply redirecting the page. However, following an AfD delete, what should be done with the userfied and merged article? Going to DRV to request history undeletion of a redirect seems like overkill, but the AfD outcome would have been merge and redirect if that were the consensus. Moving to a Talk subpage is rarely done. I approached Michig at User talk:Michig#Black Market Hero, but I want a better idea of what the best method is. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well there are a bunch of ways to comply with GFDL. You can list the 5 largest contributors to the deleted article in an edit summary to the retained article, you can copy the history of the deleted article to the talk page of the retained article, you can do a history merge of the edits but that breaks up the history, you can copy the list of contributors to the new article and then revert the edit, or you can do a protected redirect to the new article. Most of the time we don't care since in general Wikipedia does a poor job of following the GFDL and very few edits end up being GFDL-significant in the long run. MBisanz talk 03:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Jon Kaas= autobiography?
Hello MBisanz
I noticed that you added the "autobiography" tag to the "Jon Kaas" page. This is not the case, unless it applies to one of the intermediate revisions. Can you please explain what the intention was, and I will try to clarify. Fluminense (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since all the sources were to books by Kaas and it had an overly positive tone, it seemed like it was more an autobiography, I've changed the template per your comment. MBisanz talk 07:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| For generally being all round great and constant involvement in AfDs. Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
Closing bot RFAs
In light of (fairly) recent changes, you need to make sure you remove the line:
<noinclude>[[Category:Open Wikipedia bot requests for approval|{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1|3}}]]</noinclude>
from the top of the B/RFA to remove it from the category. It no big deal really, but helps to keep things tidy. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for answer
Thank you for answer;
The (public) content of the mentioned AFD discussion page contains many KEEP opinions with arguments linked to WP policy...; There is thus not a consensus for deleting!!. In such case, the page is KEPT according to WP policy :....If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the article is kept....
Is there anything wrong?? Thank you for answering here or in my discussion page.Gentilal (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
redirect on Ryan Asselta
Per a deletion debate (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ryan_Asselta), you reestablished a redirect on this page and protected it. Unfortunately, the redirect is actually incorrect, but matches the delete consensus. The subject of the article is apparently a local broadcaster in Boston for WFTX, but the editor who proposed the redirect transposed two letters to WXFT - a Chicago station. This was clearly just a typo on the part of the editor, as he originally redirected to the correct article here [26] and [27]. While you're at it, you might consider protecting or deleting and salting Ryan asselta (with the surname case error). Majorclanger (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, WFTX is a Florida channel, you wanted WFXT, which I've gone and changed it to. Also protected the spelling redirect. MBisanz talk 20:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ta! Obviously an easy sort of mistake to make! Majorclanger (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome templates
Which Friendly template are you using? I can't find it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- User:MBisanz/Welcome, stolen from User:Download. MBisanz talk 20:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Nice template. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Adnanmuf not disruptive?
Sorry to lobby you on this, but,
- The case has nothing to do with Wikzilla; somebody filed a spurious checkuser against Adnanmuf thinking he was Wikzilla, but nothing came of it.
- Adnanmuf/Barbarosa's edits are only "not disruptive" to the extent that you see pushing personally derived crank theories of ancient history and genetics as "not disruptive." He's been at this shit for years and clearly will not be stopped by anything but a ban. <eleland/talkedits> 17:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't understand this either. The Barbarosa123 account is clearly a disruptive block-evading sock. And how did Wikzilla ever come into the picture? Weird. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
: 30 March 2009
- From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
- Special report: Community weighs license update
- News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Sheree Silver (again)
MBisanz, I apologize for bringing up this topic again (or if this is against procedure). An RfC is currently going on for the article Sheree Silver which concerns a fair amount of information (60+ sources), and the article was just nominated today for an AFD under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). I'm not quite sure how to handle this, because restoring an old revision could start Wikipedia:Edit warring. I understand if this is forward, but I appreciate any advice. Spring12 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well as long as the version at AFD incorporates the new information mentioned at the DRV, things should be fine. MBisanz talk 20:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's the problem, the editor and I couldn't agree on the inclusion of sources (the editor reverted), so I'm now concerned that the article is being judged on its current revision (which contains only a couple of the sources), not the new information itself. I'll add the list of sources to the AFD discussion, but that's probably not good enough. Oh well, thanks anyway. Spring12 (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Media Temple - Deletion Discussion
Thanks for allowing the discussion. It shows how easy it is to post and keep an article in the Wikipedia no matter how self-promoting, notable (in the truest sense of the word) or accurate an article or organization may be. Claims of "sockpuppetry" and the like by users and admins without sufficient evidence to support it are not verified by objective parties or anyone for that matter. More importantly, the veracity of a company's claims, statistics and article content go unchecked as well. What was the decision to keep this article really based on? This type of "quality control" will only serve to decrease the value and credibility of Wikipedia over time. I would like to argue for more checks and balances within the Wikimedia system of arbitration. I will be sure to pass this discussion on to the Wikimedia board for further examination.97.93.93.8 (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was kept based on the community consensus of the existence of sourcing as described on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_Temple_(second_nomination). You can request review at WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz talk 21:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
What community consensus and what community are you talking about. You and two other people decided to keep the article, the community (not sockpuppetries - and you know this or is your next argument ip-spoofing?) decided to delete this article.97.93.93.8 (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Please be patient !
May I consider your hint : " ... I believed and still believe the consensus was to delete.;. You may appeal it at WP:Requests for undeletion... " as an invitation not to discuss your decision with YOU ??? Gentilal (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've reviewed my decision carefully and stand by it, so you would need to go to DRV if you still would like the article undeleted. MBisanz talk 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Please be patient !
- Dear friend, are your deep and valuable works on "appellate court structure" and "laws" making you see "Appeals" and "DRV" everywhere ??!!
As a scientist, you are, for sure, patient and clement!!, and opened to discussion
I'd never asked you to change your mind!! but just for the reasons(you never gave) of your decision. If you do not have time; please answer to the following (even by a Yes/No statement!):
- The AFD was about Notability Via existence of reliable sources, wasn' it?
- Yes
- Among the 7 few users who discussed the AFD claim (Notability) are there less then 3 KEEP or MERGE votes?
- There are more than seven commentators at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boubaker_polynomials_(3rd_nomination)
- As it was not a majority vote, do you consider 3:7 as consensus?
- I don't know where the 3:7 ratio is coming from, but please see User:MBisanz/AfD for how I evaluate things.
- Would you accept a Neutral Adjudicator from WP:Administrators judges and evaluates your decision?
- Deletions can be reviewed at WP:DRV
- Can you provide me a copy of the deleted page?
- I'll email you a copy of the deleted page.
- The AFD was about Notability Via existence of reliable sources, wasn' it?
Finally; I count with your understanding and high-scientific level faith.Gentilal (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replied. MBisanz talk 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- It appears you don't have an email account enabled on Special:Preferences, so I can't send it via that. MBisanz talk 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do have an email account ( in UK see Preferences)!!! (you can additionally copy an paste it as a user subpage in my user page)
In every case, your policy is clear. But if one proves to you that the AFD claimer managed this action to impose decision on WP:EN (and succeeded!) would you revise your attitude? Gentilal (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you stalking my hard redirects?
I've gotten trigger emails from 3 different projects of you changing my hard redirects. It is sort of amusing actually. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, I was going through all the English projects fixing broken redirects. Didn't realize about the email part. MBisanz talk 00:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Make that 5 projects. Kinda funny actually. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the redirect!
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for the (stylish) soft redirect on WB!
New Rochelle discussion notice
New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.
This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.
This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, WTF? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Confirmed with Special:Espionage. MBisanz talk 04:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hopiakuta
I would urge unblocking. The user was looking for help archiving his talk page as it was getting too large and I helped him with that. I don't think he means to be insulting to other users. –xeno (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- That wasn't why I blocked him, see my post on AN about the edits I blocked for. MBisanz talk 02:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Respectfully, those minor instances of edit warring do seem to be his good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Enigma should not be outright reverting him, in fact, this is a misuse of rollback. Related shooting incident in which BART police were involved, good faith attempts to build consensus of his reverted edit (outright reverted), related high-profile shootout in Cali. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Wiki_editor_DonFphrnqTaub_Persina appears to be an AN subpage L'aquatique set up to try and assist the user integrate with wikipedia. Unfortunately she is on Wikibreak just as he returns. He sought my assistance here, I feel as if I should try to provide it. I would like to continue L'aquatique's work with the user, if that's ok with you. He has made many positive contributions to Wikipedia. –xeno (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI re Otheruse
Hopiakuta has been recently frustrated by his edits seemingly disappearing, and since Otheruse was deleted speedily in the midst of the RFD discussion you initiated, I IAR'd and restored it to show him where it went. Another RFD discussion (along with several related and similar CNR's) was opened at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 31, you may wish to comment there. cheers, –xeno (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Etzel_diryasin.jpg
why did you remove this important file? commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Etzel_diryasin.jpg Now it is missing in wikipedia... see http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA_%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A8_%D7%99%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9F&action=history for details —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.36 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please see commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Etzel_diryasin.jpg. MBisanz talk 19:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
AbsoluteTelnet AFD
I saw you closed the AbsoluteTelnet AFD with a relist. Does this mean I can remove the tags from the article that say "this article is being considered for deletion"? --Brian Pence (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, that means it has been relisted for a further five days and the tag should remain during that period. MBisanz talk 19:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Question about usernames
I'm contacting you out of the blue, because I'd like some advice. While perusing Special:ListUsers, I ran across these two accounts Valley2city drinks elephant semen (talk · contribs) and Valley2city drinks horse semen (talk · contribs). At face value, these would seem to be personal attacks pointed towards Valley2city (talk · contribs). After reading WP:IU, I'm not sure what to do, because on one hand, it says "Disruptive usernames that have clearly been created only to cause trouble should also be blocked indefinitely...[]...Such disruptive usernames may contain harassment or personal attacks", and on the other hand it also says "Inappropriate usernames do not need to be reported or blocked if the user has made no contributions". These two accounts have not made any contributions. What would you do? Just leave them alone? Thanks for your advice. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd block them. Blocks are cheap and whomever registered those accounts was not here for WP:ENC. MBisanz talk 22:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. Now that I look closer, I see they have already been blocked, but I still learned something from it. Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
They pulled a fast one on you - they renamed the article. You deleted the redirect. The actual article is still there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Doh! Thanks. MBisanz talk 00:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- You did it so fast I didn't even get to copy it. I was thinking of going to this wonderful annual event in China. Now I'll never know. :'( Oh, well, dat's dat. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Its last remnant is its talk page. Isn't there some way to trigger a deletion of a talk page? Some template or another? If so, could you let me know, and I'll test it? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Drat, I am fast! {{db-g8}} deletes such page. MBisanz talk 00:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, and would that work for the subpage, now that I've downloaded it? In a vaguely related note, supposing I create an article (a notable one) in a subpage. Once I post the article, am I compelled to delete the subpage? Or can I keep it for "tinkering" purposes? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Drat, I am fast! {{db-g8}} deletes such page. MBisanz talk 00:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Its last remnant is its talk page. Isn't there some way to trigger a deletion of a talk page? Some template or another? If so, could you let me know, and I'll test it? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- You did it so fast I didn't even get to copy it. I was thinking of going to this wonderful annual event in China. Now I'll never know. :'( Oh, well, dat's dat. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
List of Your Choice Records bands
Hi there! Could you please close the merge subject. There is no need to delete nor merge. Thank you and all best, Party diktator (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the merge has not been completed, so the template cannot be removed. MBisanz talk 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Front Range Community College
|
On April 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Front Range 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. |
Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Siena College, again
Hey MBisanz, just a heads up that the edit-warring might kick off again at Siena College - do you have any suggestions on how to calm things down? --hippo43 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:National city bank.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:National city bank.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kalel2007 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok...
--> User_talk:Jennavecia#Idea_for_a_contest_you_may_be_interested_in_running...
'nuff said, I think someone should give it a whirl....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
PS: Pass around to any others who might be interested, I just thought of Jennavecia off the top of my head, others may be interested too (and she may not - dunno).
Errol Sawyer article
Dear MBisanz, several moths ago you deleted very quickly the article of Errol Sawyer. I have found more links and I would like to ask your assistance to edit the article so we can put it back in the Wikipedia again. Errol Sawyer is an important African American artist according to my opinion. --82.95.185.119 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- The article is at User:1027E/Errol Sawyer and hasn't been touched in over a month. MBisanz talk 23:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about the present state of the article? I took a grabshot of the archival search of PF magazine and I scanned the whole article. Their server is very slow. Can we attach this pdf to the link? Do you have a normal e-mail address I can write to and send files to? My e-mail address is: fischerm@dds.nl
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.185.119 (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Illinois Valley Community College
|
|
On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Illinois Valley 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. |
Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Buttermilk
Hi, saw you comment on Buttermilk's talk page. I would like to also draw your attention to her antics at Talk:Rodeo, Talk:Rodeo in the United States, Talk:Animal cruelty in rodeo and her edit history. Note too that she has made over a thousand edits since March 13 or 14, all one general topic, and that was the first day she ever appears to have edited wikipedia, yet appeared full-sprung with knowledge of policies and procedures. This is unquestionably a single-purpose account, and I cannot believe this is a new user who is a 16 year old kid given the combination of sophisticated knowledge of both sources and of wikipedia procedures and policies. Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Waiting for Risker to conclude CU, I'll probably be blocking some people. MBisanz talk 21:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder what connection, if any, the British IP address given away by the user MoreThings, has to do with this. Maybe that's just an innocent supporter, or maybe there's something else going on. Lassie's begging for the investigation to stop, along with ridiculing anyone who thinks otherwise, is another interesting aspect of this situation. At the very least, it/they have confessed to having a compromised account. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not even a checkuser privy to private data, and off-hand I can think of at least four cases of socking with British IPs that were never fully resolved. Doesn't surprise me. MBisanz talk 21:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- At least it's only rodeo. But if they touch baseball, they're toast. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not even a checkuser privy to private data, and off-hand I can think of at least four cases of socking with British IPs that were never fully resolved. Doesn't surprise me. MBisanz talk 21:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder what connection, if any, the British IP address given away by the user MoreThings, has to do with this. Maybe that's just an innocent supporter, or maybe there's something else going on. Lassie's begging for the investigation to stop, along with ridiculing anyone who thinks otherwise, is another interesting aspect of this situation. At the very least, it/they have confessed to having a compromised account. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain this closure?
Could you please explain this closure? Geo Swan (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've reviewed. I selected redirect at the time due to the consensus for there to be no article and a close of disambiguate is somewhat non-standard (I've done them less than 4/4500 times), but going over it again, I've changed the close to disambiguate. MBisanz talk 04:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Could you also look at this please? This page was initially a redirect and was changed to disamiguate bu ths user. Don't you thik that, it should still be a redirect based on the result. I would think so. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Carina Axelsson AFD
Four votes to keep and three to delete isn't a consensus to keep. At best it's "no consensus". DreamGuy (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- AFD isn't a vote, the keep comments did provide sources to address the WP:AUTHOR concerns, and it is the same outcome regardless. MBisanz talk 00:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Some random "vandalism" got me thinking about this so I thought I'd just go ahead and question your judgement—I think you got it wrong on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop rap. In the end, no one was asking for a redirect, they were asking for a merge (which still hasn't been done). I think the article should be restored until the merger is complete. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, the consensus cleary was to not retain the article, so redirect was the best option to let anyone who wanted to merge content have the content available at a later date. MBisanz talk 04:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Wallace Community College
|
|
On April 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wallace 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. |
Victuallers (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. While I disagree with the outcome of this AFD (policy-based keeps outnumbered slightly by some bizarre delete arguments including claims that the band doesn't really exist and that they wrote their own Allmusic biography), there was properly-sourced content there which belongs in WP. This could at least be merged into the 40 Below Summer and Flaw articles. Could you restore the article to my userspace so that I can attempt such a merge please? Thanks.--Michig (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done at User:Michig/Black Market Hero. MBisanz talk 06:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- User:Flatscan has asked me to request that this article is undeleted and redirected to 40 Below Summer to preserve the edit history (see User_talk:Michig#Black_Market_Hero). Thanks.--Michig (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, done. MBisanz talk 21:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I've moved the page back to Black Market Hero and tagged it with {{R from merge}}. Please let me know if this conflicts with the AfD close – if it's a problem, I'll move it to Talk:40 Below Summer/Black Market Hero. Flatscan (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, done. MBisanz talk 21:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Centralia College
|
|
On April 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Centralia 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. |
Shubinator (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Phillips Community College of the University of Arkansas
|
|
On April 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phillips Community College of the University of Arkansas, 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. |
Shubinator (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Matthew, I'd like to withdraw my AfD nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Life, in light of some good sources that one of the user's has dug up. Are you able to tickle that up for me when you get a moment please? Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 06:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done heh! MBisanz talk 07:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks heaps. As a side note, is closing off an AfD in this situation something that I'm able to do, or should I leave it for an admin? Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 07:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it is your own AFD and no one has agreed with you and you want to withdraw it, then yeah, it is fine to close yourself. MBisanz talk 07:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sweet as. Again thanks. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 07:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it is your own AFD and no one has agreed with you and you want to withdraw it, then yeah, it is fine to close yourself. MBisanz talk 07:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks heaps. As a side note, is closing off an AfD in this situation something that I'm able to do, or should I leave it for an admin? Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 07:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This user self-identifies as a minor and had his name and a picture of himself on his userpage. Beach drifter (talk · contribs) has removed all the identifying information per the discussion on the talk page, but it is still in the page history. Could you delete the userpage and restore the revisions that do not reveal this user's personal information? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment
Sorry to disturb you here. I notice this image on English Wikipedia: [28] was placed on Commons here by someone with no knowledge of performing an actual transfer. What would happen if someone placed a 'db-commons' tag on the first image? Then the Commons image wouldn't have an actual source because a proper transfer wasn't done. I tried to transfer the original image to Commons but of course I couldn't since this image with the same identical name exists.
![[28]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Malabar_Pied_Hornbill.jpg){kind=link}
- Any ideas? Personally, its a low resolution image but this is the only image available for this particular species on Commons. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Moved it to File:Malabar Pied Hornbill(full).jpg at commons, so now we have both versions. Yea, it would have been bad since we could have lost the larger image, good catch. MBisanz talk 09:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Snappy
All of 11 minutes. :-) Though to be honest I considered the "approval" to be a rather silly formality in this case. Dragons flight (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Nobody, not even the nominator, argued for deletion, so how come you closed this as a "delete"? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whoops, I see, I think the relist template might have hid something, fixed. MBisanz talk 09:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greece–Jamaica_relations
Hey Matt
I want to complain about the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greece–Jamaica_relations close. One keep, one delete + nom, the only argument being WP:N might not be satisfied. With [29] + [30], I think WP:N is satisfied, and would like it if you'd restore it, and I'll add the refs & flush it out a bit.
Cheers, WilyD 12:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well we have generally been deleting this X-Y Relations articles (at least I think that is the trend) and Greece and Jamaica don't stand out in my mind as being backyard buddies, but since you have sources, I've restored. MBisanz talk 20:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- They're a point of enormous contention right now, but the ones that've been sourced (with one or two exceptions) have been kept. I've no idea what'll happen going forward. If it'll keep you from sleeping at night, I listed a bunch of example keeps in this debate. Thanks, WilyD 20:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, this article and its restoration are now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece–Jamaica relations (2nd nomination). Nick-D (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As I see that you have enough people questioning your AFD closures, I keep it brief. Was your closure on this one because you found a particular keep argument compelling, or because of the split in the !votes? I'm not questioning the closure, I just want to know how to better phrase the next nomination after it becomes clear that Rand won't seek the Senate seat. Burzmali (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- It was because there was a split !vote and the keep comments made compelling arguments (he is a notable activist with sources documenting notability). If the keep comments didn't make any argument, it might have been delete, just as if the deletion arguments hadn't made the "Notability isn't inherited" argument, it would have been keep. MBisanz talk 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
: 6 April 2009
- Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
- News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
- WikiProject report: WikiProject China
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment
Thanks Matt. BTW, Can this be deleted: File:RichardMourdock.pdf Its a duplicate of File:RichardMourdock.jpg
Can you also kindly direct me to the Deletion codes page on Wikipedia...so I know how to tag a duplicate or an image file with a bad pdf format for deletion. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted, deletion codes are at Wikipedia:CSD#Marking_an_article_for_speedy_deletion. Happy tagging! MBisanz talk 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Matt for the directions. I have done several thousand edits in the past on Wikipedia mostly on Ancient History but I have slowed down a lot in 2009 due to my poor health (Admin Doug Weller knows about my situation). That is one reason why I mostly edit on WikiCommons nowadays. (its less stressful there too which helps!). Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Playboy
Hello,
Per my boss, I am creating Wikipedia pages for shows currently airing on Playboy TV. Is it possible for me to get clearance to upload Logos and safe pix for the individual pages I create(i.e. the recent 1 I did for Boy Nexxt Door)?
What's the proper process to get them up?
Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepolekim (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Question
Thanks again for your help.
I was able to load a logo up on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BNDLOGO.png. Just curious, I actually do work for Playboy and we own rights to this, but how do I verify it so it doesn't get removed?
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepolekim (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you could email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org stating you own the image and license it under cc-by-sa-3.0, then it will be verified. MBisanz talk 22:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Question
Hello again,
Just to double check. I sent an email to that address, but have yet to get a response. Is that normal?
Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepolekim (talk • contribs) 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- It will take a few days to be processed, you will get a response when it is finished. MBisanz talk 00:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
AbsoluteTelnet
You made an addition to the AbsoluteTelnet talk page to record the 'keep' decision regarding the AbsoluteTelnet AFD. However, your edit points to the *original* AFD which the result was 'delete' The results of the new AFD (2nd nomination) was different. Can you please fix the talk page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpence (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)