User talk:MBisanz

Hi, This is just my talk page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits or ask for help on anything. If you feel I've abused my administrative or BAG powers, please see User:MBisanz/Recall for further instructions to request their removal.

International Delphic Council

Dear Mr. Matthew Bisanz,

I would like to request to you to reinstall the English Wikipedia – Site for the International Delphic Council (IDC). I have worked on the contents with new relevance. The organizations website is more relevance www.delphic.org where you can reach the Initiator. The idea of the initiator (International Delphic Council founded in 1994) is to revive the Delphic games but there have been some disloyal to rebel against, especially the Russians organizing International Delphi Committee (organized in 2003), they have use the counter subject “Committee” instead Council which is worldwide known. I would be grateful if you will dedicate yourself to consider this my request to reinstall the International Delphic Council (IDC) in the Wikipedia. I am looking forward to hear from you soon, thank you.

With best regards --Delphico (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to go to WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 08:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Chemyanda

Regarding the Leonard_Hokanson.jpg photo recently removed from the article of the same name, the musician's widow states that the photo may be used as long as the name of the photographer - Christian Steiner - appears. Thus the photo should be restored, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemyanda (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I just double checked and there was no license indicating that on the image I deleted. MBisanz ^talk 08:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

The Revision History of Wikipedia:Mentorship records your participation the article's development; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you.

Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. --Tenmei (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Need your help

Hello my friend, since I am not too savvy in these matters, you were kind enough to help me in the past and that is why I asking for your help now. I contacted the copyright owner of this image: File:Miguel-Poventud2.JPG which I uploaded because the website does not work. The copyright owner agreed to send OTRS the permit of usage and did so. The problem is that the owner nor I could understand the response which she received and forwarded to from OTRS which is this:

Forwarded message

• wa, wa, wa?

From: Permissions <permissions@wikimedia.org> Date: Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 5:35 AM Subject: Re: [Ticket#2009121110044901] copyright notification To: yolanda poventud <olapoventud@gmail.com>

Dear yolanda poventud,

Thank you for your email.

12/11/2009 16:50 - yolanda poventud wrote:

"I Yolanda Poventud, as the copyright holder of the image attached/in url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Miguel-Poventud2.JPG, agree to release in under the terms of GFDL. I understand that this allows anyone to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as the constraints in the license, like attribution, are respected."

We have not been able to validate this authorization at this time, because we are unable to be sure that the email address which you have used is indeed that of the site where the content was originally published.

To confirm this authorization, you may:

• Resend this email to us from an address listed in the contact page on your

website (please ensure that you include the ticket number in the subject, so that our system will associate the new email with this one).

• Amend (temporarily or permanently) the contact page on your website so that this

address appears on it, and reply to this email saying you have done so.

• Add a notice on your website specifying that the content is released under the

CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (or, in the case of an image, any other acceptable free licence), and reply to this email saying you have done so and linking to where we can see the notice.

Thank you for your understanding and patience. This procedure is in place to ensure that Wikimedia respects copyrights and the rights of authors.

Yours sincerely, Michelle Kinney

• Could you be kind enough to explain in simple language what is that the copyright holder or I have to do? Sould I delete the Source in the image and license, which are not working and which does not belong to the copyright holder, and then post the ticket number and have the copyright holder resend the permit? Help? Tony the Marine (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing she needs to do is send an email from her company's email system to OTRS stating what she already stated, and the image will be approved. Does that make sense?

It does make perfect sense, except that she doesn't work for any company. The source, which no longer uses the image and the copyright holder are not related. That is why I asked her to give us her permission. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears we need some further information about the actual source of the image. File:Miguel-Poventud2.JPG is very low quality and tiny; it gives its source as a web page but that webpage seems to be using a number of low resolution images that probably don't actually belong to the person who created the site. What we really need to know is where this image first came from. This will help us to properly determine who is the current copyright holder. If you can get some more details on the image, I'd be happy to help you work out the copyright status. Shell ^babelfish 09:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Poke

Looking for a quick decision that will reduce the list of legal policy pages from 11 to 7; link is WT:POLICY#Tweak to list of legal policies. (One of the pages is one I asked you about.) (Not watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AIV

That attack on talk:Timur seems like open proxies. If so a long block is warranted. Thoughts? Materialscientist (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Could just be a /b/ attack. –xeno^talk 23:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a bot out there that is supposed to test and block open proxies, which are not my specialty, so I was more focused on stopping the immediate problem with quickie blocks. I suspect this attack was a /b/ coordinated attack and not open proxies. MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In the old days I would have sent Email

Subject: Reason prevailing

Hello -

Sorry you have been dragged into all of this. Regarding reason, I regret that as long as EEML! is being shrieked like WITCH! I shall be responding. In good faith I spent an inordinate amount of time responding to the evidence presented against me by individuals. I'm in my mid-50's with family health and other issues, I do not need to be defending my integrity against puerile Wiki onslaughts that take full advantage of ArbCom being content agnostic.

Then I find that anything and everything I have responded to apparently means nothing, as there is no indication ArbCom has listened to anything I have presented in my defense, instead they have crawled inside my head in the grossest assumption of bad faith with virtually no findings against me, yet proposing one-year topic or total bans.

You tell me what avenue I have for defending myself. When this started, I prepared an act of contrition to forward to ArbCom for their consideration when I felt the time was right. I have since deleted it, regretting I did not take a more forceful stand against my accusers.

ArbCom is fueling the problem with their guilty as charged assumption, as they have not looked for an understanding of the situation but only for bad-faith explanations for anything that can be potentially mapped from an Email to an on-Wiki article or editor. According to their logic, had Russavia been harassed in real life for some reason, coincidentally, EEML members would have been found to be the most "likely" perpetrators. In a real court, innocence is presumed and proof must be considered incontrovertible; on Wikipedia, guilty is actively sought and "likely" is good enough.

Done venting. No response required. No action being lobbied for. You are free to share this or not as you see fit. My respect for ArbCom goes down daily as the thoughtful answers provided to some of my election questions now appear to be lip service, or, worse, apply in all cases except my special case.

/Peters

Fair notice: I will consider responses from my detractors here harassment. I am only posting this on-Wiki so I can't be subject to more accusations of lobbying, etc. should it become known I made contact. Don't blame me for the atmosphere, I'm only responding.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you and Shell for all of your help. Unlike some others, you both are problem solvers and I appreciate that Tony the Marine (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I do have one more question which is not related to Poventud. I uploaded an image from an article. Now, according to Hector A, Garcia Foundation, their images and articles (Projecto Salon Hogar, the source) are Public Domain. Since the old {{PD}} tag is loner used, what would the proper tag be? The image in question is this one: File:Venegas.JPG. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)