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.

why did you delete Mixtape Messiah 4 article

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Creekwater (2nd nomination)

Hi Matthew. Do you mind if I inquire about this close? All of the delete comments occurred before I added sources to the article... I would have liked to have seen some comments from editors regarding the additions I had made. Cheers, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well my basis was that you cited your comments on Oct 16, I closed it on Oct 20, so there were 4 days for the 3 editors who commented before you to review it. It you had commented on the 19th, I might have leaned more towards relisting it, but it is hard to say "he answered their concerns", when "they" haven't spoken. MBisanz ^talk 16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that this was sufficient time for the others to return and review the changes I made, I'm not convinced that they actually did. Knowing TenPoundHammer, for example, it is not like him to leave a comment like "If there was one more source I might say weak keep" and then not follow-up with another comment once more sources are added. In my experience, people generally return with a comment like, "Those new sources don't prompt me to change my mind" rather than just saying nothing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I forgot I voted in this afd and I was out of town for a couple days. Anyway, if you want, you can take it to DRV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, what are your thoughts about re-listing at this point? Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be very odd to relist at this point, seeing how long its been closed, it might be better to take it to DRV with TPH commenting there. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, very good point, so here it is:

Deletion review for Bobby Creekwater

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bobby Creekwater. 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. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Question

I would like a little more information about why the page for the Colorado Film School was deleted. I would like to avoid whatever mistakes were made when I create a new page for it.

I would review the comments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado Film School and WP:ADVERT to understand the objections to the page. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Create protected

Just an FYI... After getting something moved over there, I decided to create protect your mainspace name. Try not to become notable enough for an article, 'kay? ;) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I shall try. Thanks. :P MBisanz ^talk 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Template Retired CF → Template:User Retired CF

Template Retired CF → Template:User Retired CF

Pseudo-template redirect for userboxen, is not content. MBisanz ^talk 14:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I would like to keep this template but since I created it in April no one else seems to use it. Instead of deletion maybe it just needs to be put in a category where others can find it. Any suggestions? CubBC (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • The template is not up for deletion, just the redirect to it. To continue using the template, just place {{User Retired CF}} wherever you currently have {{Template Retired CF}}. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigHairRef

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Shepard redirects

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

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

Image:Texas-Tech-University-logo.png

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

Result of vote

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

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

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

On AfD patrol tonight

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

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

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

Boston Medical Group

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

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

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

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

Premature closures create dissent where none previously existed

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

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

Deletion of Kotava

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

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

And if you want it in Kotava:

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

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

Apology

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

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

You haven't made someone's day!

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

IfD!

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

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

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

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

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

Imort IE logo to Sinhala Wikipedia

Dear Friend,

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

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

Jeff Austin (actor) deletion

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

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

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

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

Macquarie University Rugby League Club

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

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

Protected page

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corned beef sandwich

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

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

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

Regarding your edit on AE

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion review for Emergenetics

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

Hemanshu

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

FritzBot

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main Page redesign

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

RE: Image talk:Autocad 2009 interfacewithVista.png"

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

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

Emmalina at DRV

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

Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

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

Order of the Arrow COI Question

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

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

AfD of My Lego Network

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

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

Vihang A Naik

Dear MBisanz,

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

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

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

RfC/U request

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

User:Fronsdorf

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

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